THE COURTS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6269, 24 July 1907, Page 7

THE COURTS

CASE ON APPEAL ■IMPORTANT NATIVE LAND ACTION. 13,000 ACRES INVOLVED. SOME STRANGE ALLEGATIONS. Their 'Honors Sir Robert Stoat, C.J., and Justices Williams, Cooper, Chapman. and Button, sitting as the Court of Appeal yesterday, proceeded to hear a ;aee removed into tho Court of Appeal by order of th# Supreme Court in the Northern District, to determine whether tho statement of claim filed in a native land action disclosed any right of the plaintiffs to the relief which they claimed-

Tho plaintiffs were Mann Kapua, Faekau Hami Korcona, and Wahanga >Vetini, all of the- To Akau # district; and tho defendants were* "William Gilbert Mair, of Lake Takapuna, a Judge of the Native- Laud Court, James Wakelin Browne, of Auckland, also a Judge of the Native Land Court, and Penehamine Kiwi, of Te Akau, Te Aote Rnngi, of Orakei, Wiroinu Hoete, of To Akan, Anatipa Tamehana Tunui. of To Akau, and Para Haimona, members of the Ngabahinga, Ngatiporo, and Ngatiporou native tribes.

Mr Morrison, with him Mr Earl, apxvared for the plaintiffs; Mr Skerrctt, £.C., with him Mr 1). M. Findlay, for .lie defendants. Judges Mair and Brown©; Mr 8011, K.C., with him Mr Ostler, for the defendants To Aote Rang! and others, and Mr Blorafiold for the defendants llaixnomi and another.

4 By their .statement of claim the plaintiffs said that by virtue of a Crem-n K'ranf; they became entitled to the Te Akau block No. 2, containing 28,300 acres of land. In March, 1900, ouo ReTnana Nutana was the agent and manager for plaintiffs and their co-owners, who are all members of the Tainni tribe. At that time the defendant James Wakelin Browne was in the employ of the Government in its Native Department, and one Patrick Sheridan was secretary or chief officer of the Government Department for the purchase of native lamw. On March 31st of that year Komana Nutana, who was then at I'ukokohe, was requested by telegram from Mr Browne to go to Auckland and meet Mr Sheridan. Ifo did so, and had an interview with Mr Browne and Mr Sheridan, who intimated to him that the Government desired .to purchase 13,000 acres of To Akaa No. 2 block, and pressed him to assist in bringing about the sale. The ar°a referred to was the most valuable portion of the block. Nutana positively declined to agree to such gale, and said that’ his people who were the owners of the land would never agree to its sale. He also said the owners desired to lease part of the land to Europeans and to utilise the rest themselves for pastoral and farming purposes. it was alleged that Mr Sheridan said, "You would be wise to sell. You remember last year the line was nearly being shifted. If you don't sell the lino may be shifted this year, and you will lose land.” * It was understood by tho parties present at the interview’ that the 'line” referred to by Mr Sheridan was the boundary line of the. Te Akau block between members of the Tainui tribo and other owners- of the block who wore members of the Ngatitahinga tribe, being t the boundary lino laid down the partition, which line had been the subject of much contention, and had been the subject of a Royal Commission of Inquiry, and a sitting of the Chief Judge of the .Native Land Court as an Appellate Court; and it was also underfed at the interview that the "shifting' of-this "line” would involve the transference of the 13,000 acres in onesTainui owners, who were at that timo entitled to them, to certain of the Ngatitahinga tribe. It was further understood that Mr Sheridan's remarks referred to the fact that a Bill had been introduced to Parliament in • the ( session of 1905, after the date of the decision of the Chief Judge, to provide for a revision of that decision and a refcte question of the.boundary, r ?™ c i f n ot proceeded with during that session. Notwithstanding these !*^ ar r 3 Sheridan, Nutana , firmly declined the proposals made. v On the conclusion of the interview, Mr Sheridan said, 'Wo. (the Government) are going to hny To Akau,” and Mr Browne then made inquiries from Nutana as to the addresses of the individual owners ; named in the Crown grant, and said the Department for Native Lands would shortly cause valuations to be made of the block of land preparatory to its purohase. The block of land was surveyed ■ by Mr Charles Caesar Otway, and Mr Browne informed Mm that the Government intended to purchase the block, and requested from him information os to the various portions of the block, and their'respective values. Mr Otway told him he would never buy the southern end of the block, wMeh was the portion ho desired to purchase, because Eemana Nutana would not sell! Mr Browne replied, ‘T don’t know so much about that; hp will sell if be gets a good slice for himself.” Mr Otway remarked that Nutana" was, a particularly straightforward man, who would not be a party to or concerned in the negotiations for the sale of the land if he had previously refused to do so. Durihg the same year, but after these conversations, the Maori Bands Claims -Adjustment and Laws Amendment Act was passed into law. In accordance with that Act a sitting of the Native Land Appellate Court was announced by "panuitana” ( (advertiseement), published in the “Gazette." and dated January Uth,, 1907, and directed to be held at NgaruawaMa. The defendants, William Gilbert Mair and James Wakelin Browne (the latter had in the meantime been appointed a Judge of the Native Land Court) .took their seats on the Bench as the Native Appellate Court, for the purpose of hearing and deciding the cases that came before them. Mr Earl, counsel for the plaintiffs, and the Tainui ..wners protested against Judge Browne fitting in this matterbut, after consul tic. with Judge Mair, Judge Browne refused to withdraw, and continued to sit and. to adjudicate as a Judge. At the time of the sitting of that Court a number of the Ngatitahinga tribe had agreed to sell to the Government the 13,000 acres in question if they should gniri the land as a result of the hearing then about to . take place!' Counsel formally protested - against the sitting of the Court, in view of the "panuitanga fixing the date of sitting to ho Match 'l2th. 1907, but , the Judges proceeded to sit and adjudicate, and plaintiffs by their counsel announced that they appeared and took part in the proceedings under protest, and suffering material • disadvantage. On February 28th, 1907, the Judges delivered an interlocutory judgment reversing the judgment of the CMef Judge, shifting the boundary line, and divesting the plaintiffs and their coowners of the 13,000 acres referred to in favour of the members of the NgatitaMnga tribe, and had since made orders in terms of that judgment. Plaintiffs prayed a writ of proMbitiqu directed- to the defendants Judges Mair ami Browne, prohibiting them from exercising any jurisdiction in respect of Te Akau block or iu respect of their judgment and all proceedings following it, or in taking any-steps to carry that judgment into effect; and, further, that the judgment should be declared void. The defence was a general denial of all the plaintiffs’ material allegations. Mr Bell, K.C., Mr Ostler, and Mr Blomfiold addressed the Court, and on the conclusion - of -Mr Blomfield’s argnr mont the Court adjourned until. 10.30 this morning. ' THE FULL "COURT, A JOHNSONVILLE LAND CASE. Their Honors Justices Williams, Denniston, Cooper. Chapman, and Button, sitting as the Pull Court, yesterday con-

tinned the hearing of the special case stated bv his Honor Mr Jackson Palmer, Chief Judge of the Native Land Court, as President of the Compensation Court, in regard to an application which was made to the Native Land Court by the Johnsonvillo Town Board to determine the amount of compensation pavable to certain natives in respect of land situated in Porirua district, taken for recreation grounds. The area of tho land in question is 10 acres 3 roods 33 perches. The special case, as stated by Judge Palmer, was fully described in our issue of yesterday. Mr Treadwell, who appeared for the Johnsonvillo Town Board, continued and concluded his argument, and Mr Bunny, counsel for the native owners, addressed the Court in their behalf. Mr Treadwell replied, and their Honors reserved judgment. ,

MAGISTRATES' JURISDICTION POLICE CASES. (Before Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M.) Three first offending inebriates were dealt with in the usual manner. John McKinnon, who had previous experience of tho Court, was fined 10s, in default forty-eight hours’ imprisonment. Daniel Ryan, for disorderly behaviour while drunk, was fined 10s. in default fortyeight hours’. Ryan was further charged with using obscene language on Lambton quay. On this charge he was fined *B2, in default seven days’ imprisonment.

John Winthorp, who pleaded guilty to stealing one bottle of whisky, valued at 4s Gd, the property of Thomas G. Ashman, was fined «£!, in default three days’ imprisonment. \V. C. Hird, on a charge of obtaining between Juno 15th and July 3rd, 1907, by means of a false pretence, meals to the value of JTO, from Percy Lundon, was remanded to July 26th, bail being allowed in accused’s own recognisance of «850, with one surety of *BSO. CIVIL BUSINESS. (Before Dr A. McArthur, S.M.)

Judgment for plaintiff in defendant's default was given in the following oases : —James Thomas Hall v. Archie Cockrone, -£lO 9s 6d (costs £1 10s Gd); the same v. Henry Eteveneaux, £i 3s Gd (costs IDs); Wellington Traders' Agency v. Ah Long, -SI 11s 2d (costs 10s); same v. Douglas Jones, 11s 2d (costs 8s); Dresden Pianoforte Company v. Frederick Jehu Jones, JEII 7s 8d (costs -Cl 10s 6d); Hallenstein Brcs., Ltd., v. Henry Carniody, .C2 18s od (costs 10b); Alfred Linden Brown v. William E. Fitz Patrick, £2 3s lOd (costs 10s); Clifton Henry Dickerson v. Eobert J. McGillicuddv, -012 Us Id (costs .£1 10s 6d); Frederick Ward v. Archie C. Stewart, £7 (costs 18s Gd). . . In the case of Elizabeth Morse v. Cecilia Todd, a claim for .C2 17s Od on a registry office transaction, judgment was given for plaintiff for *fil 15s. with coats (6s). Mr Ncave appeared for defendant. Carlo Antico sued Alfred H. Hindmarsh for the recovery Of J!5 15s 6d, which had been paid to defendant for professional services rendered. Judgment was given for defendant.