MAORI LANDS

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8363, 25 February 1913, Page 9

MAORI LANDS

CONTENDING APPLICANTS WRIT OF MANDAMUS ASKED FOR. An application tor tlio issue of a writ ot manuamus directed to the laaroa District Maori Land Board commanding the board to hear an application tor trauster and to endorse a certificate of confirmation on the same came before his Honor Mr Justice Sim in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The plaintiff was Daniel Harman, of Devin, tanner, and the defendants the ikaroa District Maori Laud Board, and Lindsay Banns Barron, of Levin, farmer. Tne last-named defendant was added on the application of Mr M. Myers, after the commencement of tbe proceedings yesterday. Mr A. W. Blair appeared for the plaintiff, the Attorney-General (Hon. A. L. Herdmau) for the ikaroa Land Board, and Mr A. M. Myers for the defendant Barron.

The facts, as set out by Mr Blair in opening tbe case, were, briefly, as follows: A native called Wirihana iiunia entered into an agreement with Lindsay Banks Barron and sold him his land. Subsequently, and before the transfer was confirmed, an arrangement was entered into between Barron and tbe native by which it was agreed that he was to have the land bach by repayment of the purchasemoney, interest, and costs. The native appeared to be desirous of keeping his land. The question of this transfer from the native to Barron came before the board, and it was confirmed, but when it came up for confirmation there was some opposition made, and the board was ashed not to confirm it, so as to enable the native to take advantage of the terms of the agreement which he had made with Barron. The board (as tbe plaintiff understood) simply withheld confirmation until Hunia had had an opportunity of taking advantage of his right to repurchase. It turned out, however, that the board sealed the contract, but directed that it be held, to see what would be done regarding the arrangement between Huma and Barron. The arrangement provided that Hunia had the right to repurchase at any time prior to May 20th, Hunia entered into negotiations with Hannan. Hannan got a transfer in his favour from Hunia, the consideration being £l4O more than Barron was paying. That transfer was brought to the board for confirmation, and the court refused to confirm it because of the existence of' this transfer to Barron. The result was that the board prevented this native from taking advantage of the offer and making £l4O. The Attorney-General took the point that they had no right to have this transfer confirmed, because at that time the land was owned by more than ten natives, and although the order for partition had been made it had not been registered. Therefore the land could not be dealt with by the board. The board treated as final the fact that they had made an order that they never .should have 'made. If there was a complete transfer that would not prevent the board completing another one. The Ikaroa District Maori Land Board, in their statement of defence, set out that the land in question was owned by more than ten natives, and was, ■ therefore, inalienable, except _in the manner provided for by section 299 of the Native Land Act, 1909. The transfer from Hunia to the plaintiff was not executed with the precedent consent of the board or in accordance with Part XVIII. of the Act relating to the powers of assembled owners, and was, therefore, void and illegal. Confirmation was consequently rightly refused by the board. The only registered title to the land included in the transfer was that which appeared in the certificate of title, Volume 121, folio 121, issued, in respect of Horowhenua XL A, and. the registered owners under tnat title had at all times been more than ten in number. As a further defence the board set' out that it refused the transfer on the ground that a prior transfer of the same land by the same transferor had been confirmed. After hearing argument his Honor reserved his decision.