Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

HOROWHENUA AGAIN.

In the Supreme Court, before the Chief Justice yesterday, the case of Sir Walter Buller v. W. Smart, Land Registrar, was argued, Messrs Bell and Buller appearing for the plaintiff, and Sir Robert Stout and Mr Baldwin for the defendant. The plaintiff asked:—(l) For a mandamus to compel the issue of a title to Sir Walter Buller for a piece of land (11 acres) in the Horewhenua Block which he had purchased ; and (2) to compel the issue of a title to Major Kemp in respect to another piece of land in the same block belonging to Kemp, but upon which it was claimed should be registered Sir Walter Bnller’s mortgage and leases. Mr Bell said until he heard what his learned friend bud got to say iie was utterly at a loss to understand what was meant by the refusal of the officers of a department of the colony to carry out a decree of the Supreme Court of the colony. The decree of the Court declared that these titles should be re-registered, under the Horowhenua Block Act, 1896, and yet the Registrar had refused to comply.

Sir Robert Stout contended that there could be no registration until a certificate of title had been issued in pursuance of a final order. There had been, he contended, no final order in this case. The Native Land Appellate Court had issued an interlocutory order, but that was not a final order as defined in the Act, and this justified the Registrar in refusing to issue a title. If the Native Appellate Court had done wrong it was for the plaintiff to take measures to compel it to do its duty, but it was for the Registrar simply to carry out the Act, and not sit in judgment on the Appellate Court. Finally, he held that the plaintiff, as mortgagee or lessee, had no status for his application to the Registrar, because the Act provided that application could only be made by the persons to whom the order applied, or to the successors of such as were deceased.

Mr Baldwin having addressed the Court on the legal aspects of the question, His Honor reserved judgment.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18980531.2.26

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3447, 31 May 1898, Page 4

Word Count
365

HOROWHENUA AGAIN. New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3447, 31 May 1898, Page 4

HOROWHENUA AGAIN. New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3447, 31 May 1898, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert