LEGAL DECISIONS.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 12265, 11 October 1902, Page 4

LEGAL DECISIONS.

Hu Honor the Chief Justice has forwarded to the Registrar of the Supreme Court in Napier his judgment in a couple of native oases which were argued before him at tbs last sitting hers. I a EE OTAWHAO BLOCK, Thiafwas an appeal from a decision of the District Land Registrar in connection with the Otawhao block. The appellant had, prior to the passing of the Maori Land Act, 1900, purchased the shares of certain native owners in a part of this block. That Act provided (section 35) that when at the time of coming into operation of this Act in a district any lawful private dealing in Maori land, being a dealing which was lona Jiile commenced subsequent to the passing c£ the Native Land Court Act, IS'J l, is in bona fide progress, and has been lona fide completed in part, any patty could, with the consent of the District Lind Council, complete such dealing with the Maori owner. Subsequent to the passing of this Act the appellant bad acquired further interests, and on presenting a transfer of these to tho District Land Registrar he refused to register them. A summons was thereupon taken out to compel him to do so.

la giving judgment His Honor said that the summons raised the question, What is rhe meaning of "dealing,” in section 35 of the Act cf 1900? This Act, like nil other statutes dealing with Maori lands, was not allowed to remain long on tho KciDute Book till it was .untndi d. Twelve sections ot the 1900 Acs were amended in 1901, and some of the amendments were moat material. - veu after the amendments, section 35 was left in an obscure state, and it was difficult to interpret it. The question was, Whatia meant by a dealing bonafide commenc'd? Was there a dealing in this land by the dealings with other owners in the same block? Maori land meant any land, estate, or interest in land in New Zealand held, or which may hereafter bo held, by a Maori. The contention of the counsel for appellant was that if, as in this block, there were many owners, the purchase of the interests of several owners, and negotiations pending with others, make a dealing to ba pending with the balance of the owners who may never have been asked to sell or with whom there may have been no negotiations, It was said that dealing in Maori Und meant dealing in a block of Maori land, and not wiih individual owners. The District Land Registrar held that the dealing mnat be a dealing with a person, and that if one owner has not been dealt with his interest cannot be purchased nnder the provision in question. His Honor was of opinion that although the section was obscure, before the interest of a Maori can be pnrchasednnder these provisions there must have been negotiations with him. Transactions or negotiations with his coowners were not sufficient. The council consented to the transfer in "question, but if it was a transaction which could not be completed, snob consent could not authorise its completion. The summons was dismissed.

Mr E. H. Williams appeared for the appellant, and Mr T. Ball, the District Land Registrar, in person. IN EE TOKOSIAEU BLOCK. In this case three questions were submitted by the Native Appellate Court for the opinion of the Supreme Court. Summarised,they are- (1) What is the effect of section 31 of the Native Land Court Act, 1894. ? (2) Can the Native Land Court, having confirmed an alienation in a block, refuse to confirm subsequent alienations in the some block, the title to the various subdivisions having been ascertained at one time P (3) Had the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court jurisdiction, under section 39 of the Naive Land Conrt Act, 1891, to annul an order of the Appellate Court ?

His Honor tho Chief Justice answered the second question in the affirmative, and the third in the negative. With regard to tie first question his Honor held that the Native Land Court bad p.iwer to declare that an order ascertaining title might be antevested even although the effect was to date it prior to the Act of 1594, and so permit the owners to deal with the land. If such order was improparly made it could be reviewed, but there was no such allegation in the present ease. Mr E. H. Williams appeared for the appellant.