THE GREAT SAMOAN LAW CASE.

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

THE GREAT SAMOAN LAW CASE.

CORNWALL V. McARTHUR AND CO. [FROM OCR OWN CORRESPONDENT. ] Samoa, May 21. A durable amount of interest has been felt in the ease against Messrs McArthur and Co. by a native woman named Maneaoia, and Messrs. Lusk, Sinclair, and Hetherington. The action was one of great consequence, the damages being laid at £21,000 : while beyond the recovery of damages it wae sought to recover possosaio of somewhere about 250,000 acres of lam.. The DeputyCommissioner. Mr. Wilfred Powell, presided, assisted by Messrs. Dean and Trode, Asses iiors. Mr. Lusk &nd Mr. Napier appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. W. L. Hues for the defendants. Mr. Keea was accompanied by Mr. J. P. McArthur. At the commencement of the case, Mr. Kees objected to the jurisdiction of the Court, but it was decided to hear all the evidence on both sides, and then determine the legal questions. The evidence was then none into at length. This took seven day*, after which the legal argument, the speeches of counsel, and the decision of the Court took two more. Mr. Reer. contended that the Court had only jurisdiction to determine one point, namely, whether the plaintiff Maneama could claim any tiring under the deed, as the defendants contended that the deed to her from Cornwall was fraudulent and void, under the 13th Eliz. cap. 5. The evidence was interesting, as revealing a peculiar series of transactions between Cornwall, Maucama, and a man named Nelson, who was one of the witnesses for tho plaintiffs. The legal arguments were also important, and tend to show the necessity which exists in all these islands of some form of settled government, and of Courts having jurisdiction to decide questions of title to laud. Finally, the Court gave a unanimous judgment in favour of the defendants, holding that the deed to Maneama did not entitle her to the legal possession of the land, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants' costs. Notice of appeal was given on behalf of Manoama only, and not on behalf of the K.uropeans. The whole matter will be argued before the Supreme Court at Fiji.