INTRICATE LAW QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2785, 31 July 1907, Page 52

INTRICATE LAW QUESTION.

INTERESTING NATIVE LAND CASE. WELLINGTON, July 23. An interesting Native case came be-*.' fore the Appeal Court to-day. In 1665 the TV Akau block of 160,000 acres, 'between the month of the Waikato "River Raglan, was confiscated, but some 95,000 acres were returned to loyal Native owners of Ngatitahunga and Tainui tribra. There were 30 members of the latter and 58 of the former.. Ever etinoe then the proper allocation of this land has been in dispute, arid has been at intervals the subject of inquiry' by courts and "oommigcjons. Eventually it wae relegated to the Native Appellate Court, -which sat in February last, and caae to the conclusion that this land had never been confiscated, and that the Maori customary title still existed. . Wherefore it confirmed the decisions of 1891 and 1904, awarding the Tainuls 15,000 acres, and fixing the dividing ime along an- old, tribal" boundary. The Tainnis are now appealing on the grounds of bias on the part of Judge Browne, And ta*t the court had exceeded its jurisdiction in taking notice' of the - Maori customary title. A motion was then filed <6n behalf of the Ngatitahunga* to strike out the motion for prohibition *cm ■&& ground that die 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 Appea?. Mr P. H. D. Bell, K.C., and Mr Ostler appeared for the whole of the Ngatitahunga tribe,, Messrs . Bell and Blomfield fot , a section of that tribe, and Messrs Earl and Morrison for the Tainui tribe. Messrs Skerrett, K.C., and Findlay, K.C., appeared for the judges of the Appellate Court. Mr Bell contended that the Supreme Court had no power bo interfere with the Appellate Court, that power being taken away by section 59 of "The Native Lacad Laws Amendment Act, 1895." Mr Oetler followed, citing authorities to show that -when a well-known court w)t)kinherent powers had conferred on *t new; special jurisdiction, that jurisdiction should be exercised according to its' inherent; powers. Mr Blomfield addressed the conrt on. -tfco facts of the case.