LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6916, 17 January 1884, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

DISTRICT COURT Wednesday. [Before His Honor H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., Judge.l D.A, Tctle v. George Cozens.—This was a claim to recover the sum of £22 10s. Mr. Button appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. Hesketh and Mr. Cotter for the defence. The complainant in this case is the Commissioner of Crown Lands for the provincial district of Auckland, and the action was brought to recover rent for certain lots in township of Rotorua, held by the defendant under a ler.se made between the Ngatiwhakaue- the native tribe found by the Native Lands Court to be the owners inter alia of the above-mentioned land and the defendant. The defence set up was (1), that the defendant denies all the material allegation in the plaintiffs particulars ; (2) that the defendant denies that he is indebted to the plaintiff, as alleged in the plain tiffs particulars ; and (3) that the deed of lease dated loth of April, ISS2, referred to in the plaintiff's particulars, is void. There was a second claim for £97 10s, for rent of other lots held under seven separate leases ; but it was agreed to let this case abide the issae of the other. Mr. Button opened tha case by puttiDg in the deed of lease. Mr, Tole gave evidence as to the sale of the land in question by auction, and the conditions of lease, etc.; also that it had been translated into Maori, and the correctness of the translation was testified to by Mr. La wry, native interpreter. The whole of the questions at issue were questions of law, and the argument for the defence by Messrs. Hesketh and Cotter was closed when the adjournment took place at a quarter past one o'clock. After the adjournment, Mr. Button replied to the nonsuit points raised for the defence. His Honor reserved judgment, the other case to stand over till judgment was given in this case. The following are the salient points of the case and the arguments on the law points iuvolved : —This was an action brought to test the validity of what are known as the Rotorua leases. It will be remembered that when the Rotorua township waß formed and sold, a number of the allotments were sold to residents here at what were considered very good prices. The Government not having carried out what the lessees considered they had promised, the question was referred to Messrs. Hesketh and Richmond as to whether the leases were binding upon the lessees. The opinion was that the leases were void. Subsequent to this opinion being given, the Government passed an amendment to the Thermal Springs Act, and this case was brought to test the question as to whether the amended Act had rendered the lessees liable on the old leases. The objections raised were—(l) that the lease was invalid, a3 it was made by a native tribe, and such tribe waa not a corporation ; (2)thatit was improperly executed, as it was signed by "D. A. Tole" only, and not as attorney or agent for or on behalf of the native tribe; (3) that it was improperly attested, a3 it was not attested in accordance with the Native Lands Acts, nor waß it attested as was required by the Conveyancing Ordinance, as the true place of abode of the witness was not stated upon it; (4) that the land had not passed the JSative Land Court when the Governor had made the arrangements with the native owners ; (5) that the arrangement did not authorise the Governor to mate leases of the land.