NATIVE LAND COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5579, 26 September 1889, Page 3

NATIVE LAND COURT.

"Wkunkspay, Sept. 26. (Before His Honor Judge Barton.) MANGAHAEA LEASE ORDERS. Mr StoM'Ork, on behalf of Messrs Mcfarlaue brothers and Mr Si)enco, applied to the Couvt for advice. He stated that applications for re-hearing had been made and that his principals, and probably Mr Somerville. with whom he had not had time to communicate, were anxious to be advised whether it would be proper to remore tho case from the Native Land Court and bring it before the Commission to be appointed under the new Act, or whether they should leavo it to go on before this Court, which had already settled provisionally so many of the questions arising in the case. They felt very much at a loss what was best to be done, and asked to bo advised. Judge Barton : It is hardly for me to say anything respecting applications for re-hearing from the decisions of this Court, anil in an ordinary case I should simply reply that the matter now rests with His Honor the Chief Judge. But there are circumstances in the present case which make me less inclined to be reticent. Ido not quite understand how an appeal arises at the present stage. The Court, although it has expressed its opinion on branches of the case, has as yet made no orders, and will not do so till January next, so that, strictly speaking, there is nothing to appeal from. Then again, even if there were a decision from which to appeal, the members of this Court were appointed by all parties to deal with the lessee's claims and rights as arbitrators, with power to decide on broad equities irrespective of all technical difficulties arising out of repealed statutes. This course we have taken so far as we have gone, acting as arbitrators at the request of all parties, both Native and European, and of their counsel and conductors in Court ; therefore I cannot understand how any application for re-hear-ing (even if we had made a decision) could be sustained in the face of such request and agreement by the parties. Tho statute of 1886, by section 59, expressly makes it lawful for tho Court to give effect to any arrangement between the parties " voluntarily " come to by them. In this case they voluntarily arranged to have the case decided by the Court as arbitrators on grounds divested of technicalities, and they did so in a manner that was equivalent to stating that they desired the leases to stand, and lease orders to bo made, provided the Court saw no just reasons, irrespective of purely technical ones, for refusing to make lease orders. We acted on this agreement, and gave our opinion that lease orders ought to be issued. Nothing, however, will be positively and finally settled regarding these lease orders till January next, when the whole of the terms will have to be fully considered. The Court has made no orders as yet. I do not see on what grounds the application for re-hearing can be made. However, I think it would be very convenient, and therefore proper, that the lessees should waive the technical objection to a re-hearing motion, and should agree to have the decision of this Court (so far as it goes) reviewed by the Chief Judge ; for if he thinks the parties had not power voluntarily to arrange that the Judges of this Court should act as arbitrators, or if he thinks that clause 59 of the Act of 1886 (the voluntary arrangement clause) is not applicable to such a voluntary arrangement as was made in this case (i.e., to waive all technicalities), it would be as well that he should so decide at once, without waiting for January next. It would be very desirable that he should clear the ground if possible of these encumbering questions, although his decision, if adverse, will not settle the question finally, aa in that civae it will be referred to two other Judges and an Assessor, so that they, and not he, will be the persons >vho will have to decide whether our judgment was right or wrong. This Mongahaea case is in every respect a case fit to be dealt with by the Commission, but the misfortune is that if sent before that tribunal all the work already done and all tho arrangements and agreements already made will probably go for nothing, and all the labor will have to begin over again. On the whole, I should advise the parties not to act precipitately. There is yet ample time for giving the required notices to enable the case to be taken before the Commission, if it is found advisable to do so. The Chief Judge will, I understand, shortly be here to decide re-hearing motions, and it would be as well to obtain his decision before removing tlie case from before this C jurt