NATIVE LAND TITLES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12415, 26 July 1902, Page 8

NATIVE LAND TITLES.

. ANOTHER IMPORTANT CASH; IPib United Press Association,) WELLINGTON, July 25. To-day the Chief Justice and Justices Conolly and Cooper took up the hearing of some important cases under the Land tor settlements Act affecting the right of the Crown to acquire certain Native lands known as Ngawakaapuke. Notice was given by the Minister of Lauds in April last to tflko the lands in Question comnulsorily. As a result, proceedings were instituted m the Compensation Land Court by the owners on the ground tliat the Crown 'had no authority to eompulsorily take laud which had been held as tribal land by the Ngati- , icawora tribe before partition amongst the ' Native owners. The land is owned by Aimwa Heretnaia, of Slartinborough, and is . leased to E. J. Riddiford, and sub-leased Tully and others. Niniwa claimed i/iI,UOO compensation and the right to select 2000 acres, with the homestead. This claim led up to the president of the Compensation Court stating a special case for the Supreme Court, bringing in the following claimants as against the respondent (the Minister);— Ainiwa Heremaia Emily Grace (natural guardian of the infant child o( one of the certificated Natives, Mahupuku), Horiana- Natanalura, Henry S. Izard, and George M'Farlane. The special case submitted the following questions to the Supreme Court:- : Are the blocks affected private lands within. the meaning given to these words in section 2 of 'The Land for Settlements Consolidating Act, 1900 "? If, they are private land, is the act within the. powers of the Legislature so far as it purports to authorise compulsory acquisition by the Minister of Lands and estates of aboriginal Natives of New paland held by the tribal owners of such lands so long as it is to retain the lands? 'Counsol for plaintiffs, in denying the existence of Dower to eompulsorily acquire, based lus case chiefly on the Treatv of Waitangi and on its provision that tho Natives should be preserved in the possesion of their lands. The act, if it applied to tho lands of tribal owners, was repugnant to the Constitution Act. The Chief Justice said that a treaty could be incorporated in a statute, but coula not, as a_ treaty, override the statute, and was not binding on Parliament. TTio claimants appeared to cay that-titled Natives had a greater right than British subjects. Counsel for the Crown arsjued that if the contention put forward were to ftpplv, all the land acquired through Native title would bo exempt from tho operation of the Land for Settlements Act. The court reserved judgment.