REPONGAERE LAKE CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume LII, Issue 5463, 26 April 1920, Page 6

REPONGAERE LAKE CASE.

JLDGMFNT DELIVERED

QUESTION OF COSTS. Tho judgment of His Honor Justice Husking in the Repongaei'o Lake case was read in Court on Saturday morning by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, Mr J .S. Barton, S.M. The parties to the action were Take Tv r eke re and Irjapa Kerekere and others as plaintiffs (Mr Dunlop) and David Cameron, John Rowley Murphy and David Hair as defendants (Mr Barnard). The course of action was that the defendants in May. 1912, allegedly entered on a block of Native, Land called Ilepongaere 4A, of which plaintiffs were the part owners, and .i,n defiance of the express prohibition of the plaintiffs, caused a drain to be dug thereon whereby the waters of the lake, were greatly diminished, and the eel-fishing which tlie premises afforded was greatly injured. Tlie sum of £SOOO was claimed as dam-

ages. The action first- earn,. on for trial before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman at the December sittings of the Supreme Court at Gisborne, before a mixed jury of European and Maoris fiut owing to irregularities, this jury was, after the case had been part hoard, discharged, and a new trial ordered.

The judgment deals fully with the history of tlie two trials and the arguments and interlocutory proceedings in connection with the case, and then reviews the provisions _of~ the Native Land Act with reference to the defendants’ permission or license to cut the drain. His Honor comes to the conclusion that while the verbal license granted by To Kani Pore might he applied in answer to any claim by him, the Native Land Act prevented the verbal permission given by To Kani Pore from operating against the other native plaintiffs. Briefly, the judgment awards to tiie plaintiffs, as corresponding to the extent, of their interests in the lake, the sum of £22 in respect of the diminution of the waters of the lake and of the injury to the eel fishing, and £2 os in respect of the trespass to the land The question of costs is also fully dealt with, and the total of the costs allowed on each side is to he ascertained" by the Registrar at Gisborne and thjp total allowed to the defendants deducted Horn the total allowed to tlie plaintiffs and the difference only is to he included in the' amount- for which judgment is entered up.