THE LAW'S DELAY

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7867, 1 August 1911, Page 9

THE LAW'S DELAY

A BLOCK OF MAORI LAND.

QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE. “ These proceedings, like most Maori land litigation, have been going on for the last eight or ten years. They came to an end onco by a final decision of the Native Land Court, and then there vas a statute enacted which opened the case up again. We camo to another end, and then there was still another new statute which my friend thought would open the case again for him. The Chief Justice ruled other* wise, and that is the decision which is being appealed against.”—Thus Mr Martin Chapman, K.C., referring to a case before the Court of Appeal yesterday. The litigation concerned the disputed ownership of a portion of a huge area of laud in the Taupo district, 82,760 acres in extent. This larger area was subdivided by the Na--1 tive Land Court, at the instance of the well-known chief To. Heu Heu, who named tho ha-pus entitled. Objectors were challenged, but none appeared, and tho court ordered that certificates of title bo issued in favour of the ha-pus named on properly certified plans being deposited in the Native Land Court Office. No question was raised for some time, but in the end tile persons entitled to a subdivision called Okahukura No. 2 complained that upon survey tho area of their block had been found to be only 796 instead of 2360 acres as stated in the original plan- They applied to the Native Land Court for relief and got it, whereupon other natives whose laud had been added to tlie block made complaint to the court. This has given rise to tho protracted legislation referred to by Mr Chapman.

There are two sets of natives disputing, described for the purposes of the action as P'ateoua Kerehi and others, plaintiffs, and Taituma Margatana and others. Mr Martin Chapman, K.C.. with Mr S. A. Atkinson for tho plaintiffs, and Mr J. L. Stout, with Mr H. E. Evans, for the defendants.

In this last phase of tho action judgment was given for plaintiffs on March 17th. The judgment was perfected on March 24th. from which date the unsuccessful party had four months within which to appeal. They lodged notice of appeal on July 1 15th, but the registrar fixed os security for: costs a greater sum than they thought right* and more than they could find. They applied to tho Supreme Court by way of appeal from tho registrar’s decision, hut the learned judge dismissed the application on a legal ground. Defendants gave notice of appeal from tho judge’s decision, and also notice of appeal from the original decision of March 24th. The ease came before tile court yesterday by way of an application by plaintiffs to have the notices of motion set aside on the ground that defendants had not followed the rules of practice prescribed by the court.

Their Honors gave oral judgment to the effect that defendants had abandoned the first notice of appeal (ro costs) by the giving of tho second notice of appeal (re the final judgment). Further, the court held that there could ho nb appeal from tho judgment of the court of first instance on such .a matter as the determination of fhv amount of security for costa. . Plaintiffs, therefore, _ succeeded in their objection, but it is still open to tho defendants to appeal on the main questions decided in the judgment of March.