THE FUKEKVRA AND PUAEOE CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7282, 21 March 1885, Page 7

THE FUKEKVRA AND PUAEOE CASE.

ARGUMENT.

The hearing of the Pukekura and Puahoe case was continued at the Supreme Court yesterday, before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.

On the Court resuming, Mr. Hesketh mentioned a point which ought to have been previously named, and it was this, that the issue of the Crown grant did not interfere with the rights of the registered owners, and therefore should be allowed to stand. He contended that it did not interfere with their rights, for these reasons : that the certificate of title being issued under the 7th section of the Act, that section expressly providing that the land should be inalienable before subdivision. Now, as this was provided for by the section, no Crown grant should override that section, and therefore the issue of the Crown grant would not make it alienable contrary to the terms of the section, and that, so far, section 17 operated as a repeal or qualification of section 48 of the Act of 1565.

Mr. Bell then replied to the chief points in Mr. Hesketh's argument. With regard to the view which Mr. Hesketh pressed on the Court, namely, to adopt the proceedings of the Court of 1869 as simply a report or opinion of that Court, and that being so it was open for the Governor to accept that opinion and issue the Crown grant, Mr. Bell replied that the argument would have been a strong one had it not been for the fact that before the Court of 1869 sat a certificate of title had been issued and forwarded to the Governor, and that after that had been done it was not for the Court to make any amendment to this report. With regard to the leases, he admitted that the Court was bound by the decision of the Court of Appeal as to the lease of 1569, and that if the lease of 1569 was a valid lease, as had been decided by the Court of Appeal, it would be necessary for him to reverse that judgment in the Privy Council before it became necessary to call in question the lease of ISO'S. If the latter lease was a valid lease, and the lease of 1869 valid, as the Court of Appeal had decided, then the latter lease operated to extinguish the lease of IS6S. If, upon the other hand, the Privy Council held the lease of 1869 bad, then the lease of IS6S should be set up, and it would then be incumbent upon him, and then only, to show that that lease was bad. As to the contention that the issue of the Crown grant did not work any injustice on the plaintiffs, he contended that to issue a Crown grant would not operate as a warning to a purchaser, that the land was not alienable until subdivision ; and, that being so, it would be as dangerous to the registered owners forthelOin the certificate to hold a Crown grant, which, upon its face, would give an absolute title to them. He likened the case to that of a person attacking a patent, upon the ground that the patentee was not the true and first inventor. It might be said that the existence of the patent would not hurt the true and first inventor ; but still, he would have the right to have it set aside. With regard to the costs, he claimed that Grice and Benn should pay the general costs in the case, upon the ground that, by reason of their defence, the trial and the whole of the argument and expense had to be incurred. It was true that one of the registered owners, Hakiriwhi, had also put in a defence, and certainly so far as he was concerned, he should pay the general costs in the canse. As to the defendants, who had not appeared, he should claim by default, with costs of writ and service, and he should also ask for a receiver to be appointed, in addition to the other relief which was sought in the statement of Claim.

His Honor reserved judgment till the 15th »oximo.