COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVI, Issue 2210, 19 May 1894, Page 4

COURT OF APPEAL.

In the appeal case of Barre, Johnston and Co. (appellants) v. Oldham (respondent) Mr Hislop was. heard yesterday in opposition to the appeal. Judgment was reserved. , , . . Tho Court then proceeded to hear argument upon the matter of a lease of the Ngawhakatutu block (Poverty Bay district) from Hemi Whakarare and other Natives to Mr J. N. Williams. The Regis-trar-General of Lands, with the consent of the lessee, submitted a case for decision under section 197 of the Land Transfer Act, 1885. It appears thatthe Native owners of the block in question (which has an area of 5000 acres) number 223; that the title to it was an order of the Native Land Court dated May last, and made under tho Act of 1886; that the Native owners or some of them have executed a memo, of lease to Mr J. N. Williams of their undivided interests in tho block, and that the lease is now in course of preparation. It is essential to tho validity of the lease that it should be registered under the Land Transfer Act, 1885, but the Land Registrar of the Hawke’s Bay registration district, in which the block is situated, informed the lessee that he would refuse to register the lease on tho ground that it is a dealing with land in contravention of section 5 of the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, 1888, inasmuch as tho land is owned by more than 20 Natives. Tho lessee contended that section 3 of tho Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act Amendment Act of 1889 and tho proviso contained in it regarding leases takes the block out of the operation of section 5 of the Frauds Prevention Act of 1888 inasmuch as the land does not exceed 10,000 acres and is the subject of a title which is registerable under tho Land Transfer Act, and as such land was so owned for more than 40 days before the memo, of lease was executed. The District Land Registrar demurred to this contention on the ground that tho order bears a date subsequent to tho passing of the Frauds Prevention Act of 1888. The question submitted for the decision of the Court was as followsls the Registrar right in refusing to register the memo, of lease upon tho grounds that tho block became the subject of an order of the Native Land Court subsequent to tho passing, of the Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act of 1888, and is owned by more than 20 Natives ? Mr Stafford argued tho matter on behalf of tho Registrar-General of Lands, and Mr Edwards on behalf of the lessee. The Court gave its decision in favour of the Registrar’s contention, and as the Regis-trar-General of Lands thought tho contention of the les scowas a fair one to raise, he had instructed hi« counsel tc consent that the leasee’s cost should coino out of tho assurance fund. An. order was made accordingly, .£ls 15s costs being allowed the lessee. Tho decision in this Case will govern a number of Others. The Court adjourned until Monday, at 10.30 a.m.