THE NATIVE LANDS COURT JUDGES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7651, 31 May 1886, Page 5

THE NATIVE LANDS COURT JUDGES.

SEVERE CENSURE BY THE PREMIER. SEVERE CENSURE ON NATIVE EXPERTS. [FROM OCR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, Saturday. The Premier has brought in a Bill entitled the Kaimanawa, Oruamatua, and Owhauka Lands Bill. It has only two clauses. Its object iB to restore the rights of certain natives to the lands indicated. The block comprises nearly 300,000 acres. The Premier attaches a memo, to the Bill, in which be reviews the action of some late Judges of the Native Lands Court and native experts. He winds up with this severe censure:"ln order to do justice to the natives concerned, the Government ought to introduce a special Bill ordering the rehearing of the whole of the blocks. Ido not care to comment upon the conduct of the various persons whose action I have to allude to in this memo. The facts are sufficient without comment. Let me only add that if this case is a sample of what has been done under our Native Land Courts administration, I am not surprised that many natives decline to bring their land before the Court. A more gross travesty of justice it has never been my fortune to consider." The Premier sets out the facta at groat length, and the names of Judge Fenton, Judge Rogan, Dr. Bailer, aud Mr. Studholmo are mentioned in conncction with them. The Premier criticised the action of the Native Lands Court of that day as follows : —" I. In my opinion no valid orders regarding the Owhauka blocks have ever been made by the Native Land Court. '2. That, as regards the Kaimanawa Oruamatua block, the order was improperly made, for the Court was informed that other persons had interests in the land. 3. That the Native Land Court— first, in adjourning the Court sine die: second, in not meeting until* after the three years mentioned in the Order-in-Ccuueil had expired, namely, on the Ist of November, ISSO ; and third, in dealing with the question of withdrawal of tho hearing in the absence of the natives concerned, acted both improperly and illegally." CONFLICT OF PATRONAGE. A very curious contention has arisen between the Minister of Justice and the Judges. Mr. Skerret, the crier in the Supreme Court, has been appointed clerk to the Resident Magistrate's Court at Waipawa. The question is who is to appoint his successor as crier to the Supreme Court. The Judges say the right of appointment is with them. The Minister of Justice objects (says the Post) to their alleged desire to promote a prot6g6 from tho box of a carriage to that of the crier of the Court. PA RLI AM EN TA RY TIME. A scene in the House yesterday illustrates the rapid absorption of time in debating upon small matters. It consumed nearly half a dozen hours of precious time. Mr. Guinness asked tho Government yesterday to appoint the business for Monday sittings, seeing that the House had not met for three nights running. The Premier rebuked the eagerness of the member for llokitika. In the discussion upon the Justices of the Peace Bill in committee, the question cainc up whether tho chairmen of Road Boards should be ex officio Justices of the Peace. Sir G. Grey proposed a general amendment, " That the office of Justice of the Peace should be elective." The division, however, upon the clause in the Bill under discussion intervened, and was carried. Thereupon Mr. Fulton proposed that the chairmen of school committees should be ex officio Justices. Mr. Guinness proposed that members of licensing committees should be ex officio Justices. Mr. Wakefield moved in favour of electors of members of the House of Representatives. Mr. O'Connor suggested lady voters on municipal rolls. Messrs. Hobbs and O'Callaghan protested against trifling with the House; the former throwing "puffs and cigarettcs " into the face of the member for Selwyn. Then Sir (J. Grey comes in with his elective principle, and passes the winning-post hands down, as the saying is. The. actual results you already know.