A MAORI CASE.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLIV, Issue 95, 28 April 1910, Page 8

A MAORI CASE.

JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT.

At the recent Supreme Court sittings in Blenheim the case of Ilemoata°:.lauritu and Wera Wera Tapata was brought before his Honor Mr Justice Cooper, and he was asked to quash an order made by Mr bcottSmith, S.M., adjudging the defendant the putative father of the plaintiff s illegitimate child. His Honor, after heading argument from counsel on both sides, reserved judgment, which was read in the Court by Mr Florance, S.M., this morning, and is as follows: — Both parties in this matter are Maoris. On the 11th June, 1909 the Stipendiary Magistrate at Blenheim made an order adjudging the defendant to be> the putative father of an illegitimate child of whom the complainant was the mother, and ordering him to pay to the mother a weekly sum towards the support ot such child. The magistrate antedated the payment to the date or the birth of the child. The motion is to quash the order, on the ground ot a want of jurisdiction in the magistrate to make it. The two grounds upon which it is contended that there was an absence" of jurisdiction are that the provisions of "The Destitute Persons Act, 1908," do not apply to Maoris, and that if they do the order is bad, as the magistrate has antedated the weekly payment to the date of the birth of the child. The first ground was not strongly pressed by Mr McCallum, but as the question is of some importance, I reserved judgment in order to examine the legislation. The Acb of 1908 is a consolidation of ''The Destitute Persons Act, 1594,' 'and its amendments. Section 3 of that Act provided that it should come into operation in respect of persons of the aboriginal native race in such districts and at such times as the Governor shall from time to time appoint. It was brought into operation throughout New Zealand in respect of persons of the native race on the 7th November, 1894 (Vol. 2, N.Z. Gazette, 1894, p. 1660). Under Section 22 of "The Maori Councils Act, 1900," an Act which is still in force, a Maori Council was given power to order that provision should be made for the maintenance of illegitimate Maori children, but the Act does not contain any machinery for enforcing any order made by the Council, and Section 22 did not rest rift the operation of the Act of 1894, Section 22 also provided that at any time when requested so to do by tile Council, or when it is expedient, the Governor may as therein provided declare that "The Destitute Persons Act, 1894," shall be brought into operation in any Maori district. Apparently, the Legislature had overlooked the fact that the Act of 1894 had already been brought into operation. "The Destitute Persons Act, 1894," and its amendments were repealed by "The Consolidation Act, 1908," and Section S of the original Acb was not reenacted. In the report of the Commissioners it is stated that the section had become obsolete; and this was so, as from the 7th November, 1894, the Act had been brought into operation throughout New Zealand. The Act of 190S is quite general in its- application, and as Maoris had been from the 7th November, 1894, within the provisions of the original Act and are nob excluded from the provisions of the Consolidated Act they are within it. I can draw no inference that Maoris are not within the provisions of the present Act from the mere circumstance that there still exists in the statute law of the Dominion the section in the Maori Councils Act to which I have referred. The intentional omission of Section 3 from the present Act, nnd the fact that the original Act had been brought into operation as regards persons of the native race, establish beyond doubt that the Legislature intended the present Act to apply to the native race. The magistrate had, therefore, jurisdiction to hear the complaint. He had, however, no jurisdiction to order the putative father to pay for the past maintenance of the child, and in ante-dating the payments to the date of the birth of the child he exceeded his jurisdiction. (Bramle.v v. Bramley and Florance IT., Gazette, L.R., 425). In that case the order was held to be wholly bad, and incapable of amendment, and was quashed. But since Bramley v. Bramley was decided the Legislature has passed "The Inferior Courts Procedure Act, 1909," and this Act came into operation before the proceedings in tliis matter were commenced in this Court. The Act is expressed to be, and is manifestly, a procedure statute, and therefore'the powers of amendment contained in it nPply to, and I am satisfied were intended to apply to, convictions and orders which were in existence prior to the com ing into operation of the Act, but which are the subject of attack niter the Act came into force. Ilex v. Chandra Dliarma (1905) 2 iv.B., 335, is a clear authority that it the object of a statute is only to affect procedure, it matters not whether the events in respect of which the proceeding? are taken happened before or after the passing of the Act. Here, the only proceedings before me is a proceeding to quash the order mado by the magistrate, and Section 7 of the Act gives the bupreme Court ample power to amend the order made by the magistrate. I, therefore, exercise the jurisdiction S.iveji to this court under that section, and amend the order by altering tho date- from which payments are I? io/." 3? 8 • l, )y the defendant from the 12t i pnl 19()9, the date of tho birth oi the child, to the 19th May the <li,i.e whtMi the complaint was mado. but 1 do not think this is a case in which 1 should allow costs. Ureter amended accordingly.