NATIVE LAND CASE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1510, 7 February 1901, Page 47

NATIVE LAND CASE.

Tho Court of Appeal on Friday delivered judgment in the case Moore v. the Public Trustee, which is of interest in connection with native land on the West Coast of this 1 island. The appellant in this case (Moore) had taken a. lease from native grantees unaer the West Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, and its amendments. By those Acts the power cf leasing.and managing the reserves in question was vested in the Public Trustee, and the natives were not entitled to lease except with his concurrence. The lease in question had not received the concurrence of the Public Trustee. But it was registered under the Land Transfer Act. Subset quentlv, Moore, the appellant, transferred his leasehold interest to one Morgan, and the transfer was duly registered under the Land Transfer Act. The transfer to Morgan was assented to by the native lessors; and it was contended by the appellant that by section 6 of the West Coast Settlement Reserves' Act Amendment Act. 1887, the original lessee (the appellant) was by that assent discharged from his liability upon the covenants contained in the lease. Section 6 provides that wuen a transfer is made of a lease under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Acts, and it has been consented to in writing by the lessor, the lessee is to be discharged from liability in respect of the rent and from the covenants in the lease. On the other side, the Public Trustee contended that the lease, although originally void as being made in contravention of the statutes, had, by rdason of its registration and cf the transfer to Morgan as

a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice, become valid, and that the Public Trustee could not make the lease void, and therefore that the original lessee remained liable upon his covenants, on the ground that the lease was not a lease coming within the provisions of section 6 of the Act of 1887, because it was not a valid lease made under the West Coast Settlement Reserves Acts, and that consequently the assent by the native lessors was not the assent which was required by section. 6. The Public Trustee sued Moore for rent in the Stipendiary Magistrate’s Court, and recovered judgment against him. It Avas from this judgment that the appeal was made. In their judgments noAv delivered, the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Williams and Mr Justice Ccnolly Avere of opinion that the lease Avas void, and that notAvithstanding the registration of the lease and of the transfer, the lessee was not estopped from setting up as a defence to the claim for rent the fact that the lease was void as being in contravention of the statutes. Mr Justice EdAvards, on the contrary, was of opinion that by reason of the registration of the lease’ and of the transfer, the title had become good as against the Public Trustee, and that there was an estoppel from setting up the invalidity of the lease; and further, that section 6 of the Act of 1887 must be read with great strictness, and that a person seeking to take advantage of that section must bring his case clearly within it. In his opinion the appellant had not done so. The lease was not <*. lease made under the statutes, but Avas one in contravention of those statutes. Mr Justice EdAvards was therefore cf opinion that the Public Trustee was entitled to recover, and that the - appeM should be dismissed. The Court, however, by a majority, allowed the appeal, AA'ith costs on the lowest scale, as for a case from a distance.