NATIVE SUCCESSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10962, 26 July 1921, Page 3

NATIVE SUCCESSION

MANCATU LANDS WITT AT WAS LEGISLATURE'S INTENTION? FULL COURT'S RULING. Tli© judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court, in relation to the construction of section 6 of the Native Hand Amendment and Native Hand Claims Adjustment Act, 1917, was delivered by Has Honour Air Justice Sim (Aching-Chief Justice) yesterday. There were present also Their Houours Air Justice Hashing, Air Justice Stringer, Mr Justice Reed, and Air Justice Adams. MANGATU, AND ITS HISTORY. In April, 1881, a large block of land ©allied Alangatu was brought before the Native Hand Count for investigation of title. There was a keen contest between-- the ii'Lval claimants to blocks 1 and 4, and, after a prolonged hearing, the court found that the chief owners were Wd Pore and Wi Hnnonga, and the descendants of Wahia, and- that the descendants of Wiaka Alahuika and certain other claimants, who are referred to as “those of the party who returned to the laycLs after Ruapekapeku,” had claims upon it. The court decided that Wi Alahuika and his party were entitled to participate as claimants, and said that their proportion might be estimated at about 6 pci' cent, of the total, and it was agreed that their claims should be satisfied with a -block of 6000 acre®. This block as Alangatu No. 4. W-i Pere handed into the court a list of 179 names as the owners of No. 1. The court declined a ■ proposition to vest this block —100,000 acres— in atrust,/ but raicoeipteidl a voluntary arrangement, by which the land was to be vested in twelve persons, who were to execute a declaration of trust, and it was directed that a complete list be furnished of all persons recognised as owner® of the block. The title remained in this position until the 1893 Empowering Act, which recognised the 179 .persons and their successors Who died before April 3Qth, 1881, as the owners. This Act provided that the relative shares should be decided by consent, or, in case of dispute, by the Native Hand Court. An order wa® made about 1918 bv the Hand Couift, determining the relative interest of the owners in this block. , ' JUDGES DISAGREE. Tfiese were the circumstance® in which section 6 of the 1917 Act was passed. Hie question in dispute was whether any member of the specified hapu, whose name appeared as .part, owner of either block, was entitled to any relief- under the section. Two judges of the Appellate Court did not agree with a judgment by Judge Roiwean, that the owners of No. 4 might claim shares in No. 1,, but that the owners of No. 1 were not entitled to claim shares in No. 4 unless they could show they had been wrongly or inadvertently omitted by the count in 1881. The two judges thought that a Taupara descendant in No. 1 could not ibe admitted to No. 4, and that a Taupara already in No. 4 could not .be admitted into No. 1. “SENSIBLE AIBANING OF ACT.” ' “It is difficult to give a sensible .meaning of suib-section 1 of section 6 as it stands, and some modification of the language thereof seems to be necessary to make the section effective,’’ said the court, in it® judgment. The Legislature must have been satisfied that some injustice to the Taupara hapu had been made out, and the object of section 6 was to remedy it. There was nothing in the language of (the section which, in the opinion, of the court, justified the view that only mem'borts of the hapu claiming the benefit of the section were those who were not included in the list of owners of. either block. " 5

NATIVE COURT’S JURISDICTION. The court held that the Native Hand Court had jurisdiction to declare a member of the Whaoau-a-Tau.para hapu to be a native owner of block 1 although his name is on the list of owners of No. 4, and to declare',a member of that hapu to be a native owner of block 4, although his name was on the list of . owners of block 1. Messrs Al. Myers and D. S. Smith appeased for the Taupara. hapu.; Messrs F. G. Dunlop and H. E. Edwards appeared for the holders of No. I block.