LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10508, 30 July 1897, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-In Banco. • Thursday. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] APPEAL AGAINST THIS .GRANTING OF THE MOUNT MORGAN SFECIAL CLAIM. His Honor had before him an appeal which again opened up the question of mining on freehold property as in Aitken v. Swindley. Thomas.Chambers, settler, of Cabbage Bay, in the provincial district of Auckland, appealed from the decision of Warden H. £. Kenny, made in a proceeding before him at Coromandel on the 4th day of August, 1896, iu which A. F. Busby was applicant for the Mount Morgan special claim, and the said Chambers was objector. The decision was to the effect that by certain agreements with the native owners, and by the operations of the Auckland Goldfields Proclamation Validadation Act, 1869, the Crown acquired an interest in certain freehold lands of which Chambers is now the registered proprietor, known by the name of the Kairaumati Nos. 1 and 2, situate at Cabbage Bay, such interest being the right to mine and to grant the right to mine'upon the said lands, which were declared by the said Act to be Crown lands for cold mining purposes, and that the said lands were open for mining. The application by Busby for thespecial claim was granted. The agreement referred was dated November 9th, 1867, and was signed by certain chiefs and people of the Ngatitamatera tribe, releasing certain lands which afterwards came under the Auckland Goldfields Proclamation Validation Act, 1869. The decision was appealed against on the grounds— That the determination or the decision of the said Warden granting the right to mine over the said lands was erroneous in law. 2. That the said lauds were not subject to th». Goldfields Act, 1866, or the Auckland Goldfields Proclamation Validation Act, 1869. 3. That the said Thomas Chambers was the registered owner of the said lands, and the Crown grants for the same contained no reservation or restrictions under the Goldfields' Acts. Mr. McGregor appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Palmer for the respondent. The latter counsel opened, and called the respondent. James Mackay, native interpreter, the next witness, was called to prove that the land in question was released to the Crown by the Ngatitamatera tribe by the agreement of 1867. It was sometimes occupied by the Ngatipinenga, a hapu of the tribe. Witness was certain the Ngatipinenga was a hapu, and not a tribe. Air. McGregor said he would call evidence to show that the land in question had belonged to the Ngatipinenga tribe, who were separate from the Ngatitamatera, and therefore their lands could not be alienated by the Ngatitamatera. At an earlier stage Mr. McGregor handed in his client's Crown grant, registered under the Land Transfer Act. Alfred Preece, land agent, of Coromandel, deposed that the Kairaumati Block belonged to the Ngatipinenga tribe. As far as witness was aware the Ngatipinenga were not related to the Ngatitamatera tribe except by individual members intermarrying. Iu such instances the children would be members of both tribes and would claim to be interested in blocks owned by each tribe. Witness deposed to certain of the grantees signing the Crown grant being connected with both tribes. Witness would say that the Ngatitamatera had no right to grant lands belonging to the Ngatipinenga. In answer to Mr. Palmer, witness said the whole 10 grantees might be connected with theNgatitamdtera. RopataNgataand Tuterangi, natives ot Kennedy's Bay, said they always looted upon the Ngatipinenga as a separate tribe. The Maoris' evidence was interpreted by Mr. George Brown. Edward P. Earle, cadet in the Native Lands Office, Auckland, produced the minute-book of the proceedings of the Court of Hanraki, and read an extract referring to the Kairaumati Block, in which one of the grantees in the agreement already referred to was called of the Ngatipinenga tribe. Mr. Palmer wished to put in a document in which the ;same native signed himself as of the Ngatitamatera, but the witness did not have it in Court. This concluded the evidence. In addressing the Court, Mr. McGregor said His Honor was asked to go behind the Crown grant, and say that the land had been awarded to 17 natives of a tribe, while on the face of it there was nothing to indicate that it had been awarded to that tribe. Counsel contended it was for his friend to prove conclusively that the land belonged to the Ngatitamatera. His Honor was asked to read into the Crown grant a restriction that the Crown had awarded the land to 17 natives subject to the right of the Crown to authorise mining on the land. Mr. McGregor said he could not distinguish the case from that of Aitken v. Swindley. If His Honor were prepared to hold that the agreement was a valid one—although counsel contended the few could not sign for the many, and quoted the case Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington to show there was no such law as Maori custom or practicecounsel did not think His Honor, could go outside the grant and read other matter into it. Speaking of the judgment in the lower Court, Mr. McGregor said the Warden had interpreted Crown grants as certificates of title, but they were not so. Mr. Palmer contended the onus of proof was on the appellant's side, and not on the respondent's. As to the question of law his friend had said the Court was asked to go behind a Crown grant. Counsel questioned if it were necessary to go behind the Crown grant at all, and mentioned the late case Aitken v. Swindley. His 'Honor said since that case had been heard he had discovered a case which had been decided long ago in the colony, in which it was held that the Crown rights were inalienable. Speaking of the difference between Aitken's case and the present, Mr. Palmer said the former came under the genera! law, and the latter under a particular law which had set aside the land. His Honor said the difference, if any, was that Aitken's Crown grant was granted before the agreement was made, and could not be affected by it. Mr. McGregor had asked His Honor to be careful before interfering with the freeholders' freehold, but there was an Act setting aside the land, and it was bought subject to the Brown rights. His Honor said he would consider the case. It was very probable he wonld be unable to give judgment for some time, as he was so occupied with work.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.-Tuesday. [Before Mr. H. W. Brabant, S.M.] JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. — Judgment! was given by default in the following cases: Wallace and Caley v. 3. S. W. Hughes, £2 15a, coats 16s; J. Abbott v. H. S. Hall, H. W. Simmonds and A. deCrombrugghe, claim £154 2s 4d, costs £818s; VV. C. Dennes v. W. Hoete, claim £6 10s; costs £1 10s 6d; T. Carly v. VV, Black, for possession and £1 12s (warrant for possession to issue on Monday, claim for rent not pressed by plaintiff); G. Foster v. Mrs. E. Scott, claim £5 6s Sd, costs £1 8s 6d; J. Hodgson v. W. Purdue, claim £3219s 3d, costs £2 14s; J. Hodgson v. W. H. Ross, claim £61125, costs £4; J. Hodgson v. R. E. Dowle, claim £4 6s 3d, costs ids; J. Uibbs v. S. A. Meal, claim lis 9d, costs ss; R. 6. Carrie v. A. Butler, claim £1 14s Id, costs 6s; Hesketh and Aitken v. R. Waiker, claim £1513s 4d, costs £113s 6d; J. Grombie v. W. Carson, claim £12 14s 3d, costs £1 Ids 6d; J. Crombie v. J. Sergeant, claim £2 10s Id, costs 10s; F. Bradley r. Mary Beasche, claim £6, costs £1 3s 6d; 0. R. Fair v. J. Miller, claim £3, costs 6s; 0. R. Fair v. J. Yern, claim £'2, costs 18s (£1 paid into Court); O. R. Fair v. VV. Houghton, claim £3, costs 14s; C. Hopkins v. J. Young, jun., claim 9s Bd, costs Ss; Fowler and Co. v, W. Whittingham, claim 17s, costs ss. National Bank oi Nevt Zealand v. M. A. Waters.— this case, which was heard on Tuesday, Mrs. Waters, the interpleader plaintiff, sought to recover chattels which had been seized, on the grounds that they were her personal property. Hit Worship in giving judgment said that all the furniture acquired before the deed of 23rd January, 1893, was the property of Mrs. Waters, but the difficulty that arose was in connection with the furniture purchased from the savings of the husband's monthly allowances for housekeeping purposes. On this point ef law he had consulted various authorities, and had come to the conclusion that furniture so purchased was the property of the husband. Mr. Clayton, for the National Bank, and Mr. Inder, for interpleader plaintiff, were in attendance, and came to the agreement that other matters hearing on the case should be settled out of Court.

POLICE COURT.-Thumday. [Before Captain Harrison and Mr. Hobson, J.K'< Alleged LARCENY.-Kenneth Monaghan, on a charge of stealing an overcoat valued at £3 10s, the property.of George Baker, was remanded till Wednesday. Arthur Matters, on a charge of stealing a double-barrelled breech-loading gun worth £40, the property of Reginald Nottley, was also remanded 'till Wednesday next. Harry Gregerson was ' charged with having on 3 uly 20 stolen various articles of clothing, a theodolite, and two watches, of the total value of £40, the property of Nathaniel Thompson. Prosecutor deposed that be arrived from Coromandel by the steamer Akaroa, and gave the articles [to one Thomas Duckett, a carter, for delivery to his lodgings in Grey-street. The articles were not delivered,' and prosecutor was informed that they had been stolen from the door of the Pier Hotel. Thomas Duckets gave evidence as to taking over the articles for delivery. Left them at the door of the Pier. Hotel, and on returning a few minutes afterwards missed' them. Thomas Lynch, a blacksmith, deposed to seeing someone tike the teemed, pick up the ■' ~ '" .." •'"'-"•' T' ]' : ' : 'y^;'\■■-]'-/;

swag and walk away with it Samuel' Coombe, barman of the Pier Hotel, said that accused had been about the hotel all the morning. A portmanteau and a swag .were; left at the hotel door, and accused was stand- - ing outside at the time. Constable I McNamara deposed to finding several of "the r articles, which were identified' by the prosecutor. One of the most important witnessei in the case could not be found. .The accused, who pleaded not-guilty, 1 was formally committed'for trial at the.'next sitting of the S Supreme Court, fA . case against;';John >', Billies, for stealing the sum of £10. the pro-■ perty of James Napier, was dismissed, owing.; to the non-appearance of the prosecutor.:■?' '">$