A Maori Land Dispute.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9590, 24 July 1907, Page 4

A Maori Land Dispute.

(Peb Pbess Association. ) Wellington, July 23. An .interesting native case came before the Appeal Court to-day. In 1855 the Te Akau block of 160,000 acres, between the mouth of the Waikato River and Raglan, was confiscated, but some 95,000 acres were returned to the loyal native owners of the Ngatitalmnga and Tainui tribes. There were 30 members of the latter and 58 of the former. ; Ever since -then the proper allocation of. this land has been in dispute,, and has been at 'intervals subject to inquiry by Couirts and Commissions. Eventually it-'was relegated to thfe Native Appellate Court, which sat on February last, and came to "the conclusion that the land had never been confiscated, and the Maori customary title etill existed, wherefore th'ey confirmed the decisions of 1891 and 1901 awarding the Tainuis 15,000 acres and fixing the dividing line along the old tribal boundary. The Tainuis arc nowv appealing on "the grounds of bias of Judge Brownie, and that the Court hid exceeded its jurisdiction im taking notice of the Maori customary title. A motion was then filed on behalf of the Ngatitahunga to strike out the motion for prohibition on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to Prohibit the Native Appellate Court was expressly taken away by section 59 of the -Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1895. Both motions were, by consent, removed into the Court of Appeal. • .Mr Bell, K.C., and_M.r OstleT appeared for the whole of the N-ca-titahunga tribe, MeesTs Bell and Blbomfiekl for a section of that tribe, and _ Messrs Earl and 1 Morrieon for the Tainui tribe, and Mr Skerrett and Dr Find-lay for the Judges of the Appellate Court. Mr Bell contended' that the Supreme Court had no power to interfere with the Appellate Court, that power.beinn taken away by section 58 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1-895. Mr Ostler followed-, citing authorities to show that when a well-known Court, -with inherent powers, had conferred l on it a new special jurisdiction, that jurisdiction should be exercised according to its inherent powers. ISIr Bloomfield addressed the Court on the facts of the case. : The Court adjourned titll to-morrow." ''.