NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Hastings Standard, Issue 53, 27 June 1896, Page 4

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

AWAAWA IPeckasedi. APPEAL ON APPOINTMENT OI SUCCESSOR. OWHAOKO D. No. 6 AND lIANGI-PO-WAIU. (Before Judges bcannell and Mair). Judgment. This is an appeal from a decision of the Native Land Court given on the 7tli August, 1895, appointing a successor to Te Awaawa. deceased, and parts of the grounds of appeal now being dealt with are that- Pura Hons, the successor appointed, was not a bona fide adopted child of the deceased. Te Awaawa, and consequently has no claim as such according to Native custom, and also that an adopted child has not a claim to the whole of the land unless the adopting parent has so devised in his or her favor by a will or an '• oliaki." The remaining parts of the appeal were dealt with by a decision of this Court given on the 26th May last. It is at this hearing that the deceased made a will omitting any mention of liis interest in the Owliaoko Block which was then under healing, and that therefore it could not have been intended by Te Awaawa to go to to Para Rora. The will itself is not forthcoming, and the evidence of its contents is contradictory, bat we cannot see what difference it makes in this case. If any mention was made of the Owhaoko Block in the will it appears to be admitted that the dense would have been in favour of I'ura liora, the adopted child. If no mention was made of that interest we must conclude that so far as that was concerned Te Awaawa died intestate? and therefore the succession must be decided according to Native custom. As to the bona fide adoption of Pura Bora by Te Awaawa. that appears to have been proved in other cases referred to at this hearing, and we.are satisfied that proof is ample, and also that the adoption was such as to exclude all except " near relatives " from sharing in the succession, and that the persons now appealing are not such " near relatives"' of the deceased as to entitle them to a share in the interests in those blocks. The argument that an adopted child lias not a claim to the whole of the land unless the adopting parent has so devised by a will or an " ''• '.ki " is one that cannot be entertained. Ti. s right by adoption does not re<i - ai.o :•) be supported by a will or an " ohaki"; if it did, adoption in itself would have no c-ffect. The appeal is dismissed; and of the sum of ten pounds deposited as security for costs, the sum of four pounds will be paid as costs to the respondents, and six pounds paid into the Public Account as costs of court in addition to the ordinary fees for hearing. Mr P. E. Baldwin for appellants. Messrs Sanisbufv and A. L. D. Frasev for respondents.

AWABUA No. 1. KOIIURAU NO. 2. AND BANGIPO-WAIU No 1.

(Before Chief Judge Davy and Judge Seaimell). Judgment. Appeal of Iraia Karauria from decision of Native Land Court, appointing Whairiri Itenata successor to the interest of Renata Kawepo. The Court does not consider it necessary to go mto the question whether or not the adoption of Whniiiri Renata by Renata Kawepo was of such a nature as might under certain circumstances have entitled him to share in the lands of Renata Kawepo, because we hohl that even admitting the adoption to its fullest extent its value as conferring any right to succession is entirely a question of intention on the part of the predecessor. In the present instance any presumption of intention in that respect which might otherwise be deducible from the fact of the adoption is in our opinion conclusively negatived bv the terms of the will of Renata Kawepo. Nor can we admit any right on the part of the Native Land Court in dealing with this question to take into account the fact that the provision made by the testator for the benefit of AVhairtri has. as is alloyed, to a large extent failed. That such might lie the case was a contingency which th e testator had expressly considered and provided for. The order appealed from is there-fore annulled, and the Court orders that the Appellant (Iraia Karauria) and Airini Tonore, Pani Karauria. and Erena Karauria. as next of kin of Ilenata Kawepo, are the persona entitled to succeed to his interest in the lands, the subject of this appeal. The amount deposited as security for costs to be refunded to the depositor. Messrs T. \V. Lewis and A. L. D. Fraser for appellants. Messrs Williams and Louglman for respondent.

RULING IN RE OMAHAEI.

(By Judges Scnnnell anil Main. The Court held with regard to the question raised at the close of the proceedings on Monday—viz., as to who w ere to be regarded as appellants, otlt»"r than those who have lodged notices of appeal, the Court after careful consideration of the whole question decides : That the only persons, other than those who have lodged notices of appeal, whom it would be proper to regard as appellants, in conformity with the provisions of Rule 8 of the Native Appellate Court rules, are those who are such close relatives of the actual appellates that it follows as a matter of right without further proof that where any one of the actual appellants is admitted to ownership the others must necessarily be admitted also.