NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10962, 3 May 1907, Page 4

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

IMPORTANT DECISION IN COUNCIL

CASES.

The members of the Native Appellate Court (Judges Jones and Rawson) returned to Gisborne from Port Awanui last evening, having held a sitting of tlie Court, of which mention has aheudy been made.

In the Pahitana No. 4 block, an appeal against a succession order, it was found tliat some c-f the proper successors were not disclosed to the Native Land Court, and the order was commuted so as to enable the case to be re-heard, and the proper successors appointed. In the appeal against the investigation of title of tlie Paraumu block, the matter arose out of a decision of the Court m 1894. The appellants alleged they had sent an application for re-nearing within the Itimel limited, which was not received, and they petitioned Parliament, which m 1895 recommended tliat a re-hearing be granted. This was formally done by v special section hrthe. Act ol 1904. The parties were not prepared to go on at the present sitting, and on adjournment was granted, subject to payment of £5 costs to respondents, for whom Mr H. Hei appeurea. The two applications to determine the ownership of sheep were, after discussion, settled by the parties, and formal orders m terms of the settlement were asked for, Tlie question of the jurisdiction of the Court* m, such cases was raised, and the Appellate Court took time to consider whether it would .refer the matter -to the Supreme Court. This question does not affect the settlement of the cases. Mr Sainsbury appeared for claimants, and- Mr Hei for respondent. Some 41 appeals m connection with Block. Committee reports were disposed of, after argument, by a test case, as follows : —

Re the Hurakia Block : Judgment given April 23rd, 1907J— Tliis was an appeal from art order of Tihe__Tai-Rawhiti' District Maori Land Council, dated the 25th April, 1906, confirming a Block Committee's report. A preliminary question has been raised which affects »- great number of other appeals m a similar position, and it was arranged that tlie Hurakia appeal should be argued as a. test case. The objections raised the question of the validity of the proceedings of the Council m conlirmintr the reports, it being alleged that the Council, when it purported to near the (objections to the reports, was not pio[perly constituted, and, if it was, it did not, as it was required to do by section 19 of the Maori Land - Administration Act^ 1900, give all parties concerned a full opportunity of being heard. According .to its minute-Dook the Council opened its proceedings at Port Awanui on March Bth, 1906, tnere being then present the President, Pen'e Heihi, and one other European member of the Council. The Council remained so constituted till it completed its sitting at Port Awanui, und adjourned to Gisborne. After some formal business on the opening day, the Council adjourned "till the next day. On March 9th each ,case m the Kahiti . was allied, some being adjourned .to Tuparoa and some to Te Araroa. This case was fixed to be taken at Port Awanui on March 12th, .On. the latter date a letter was received from Wi Potae, another Maori, member., tliat he could not attend tHI the 21st, and suggesting that cases m which Pene Heihi might not be interested sliould be proceeded with, 'The Presidenu pointed out that this would retard •the work of the Council, as, although. Pene Heihi could, being present, form one of. a quorum, he could not vote or take active part,' and the case would be called and adjourned. The Hurakia case was then called, and Horomona te Opaipa, on behalf of the, present appellants, ob; jected to either Wi Potae or Pene Heihi sitting as being interested puities. The Council then, adjourned till next day. On March 13th the President made the following announcement : "Before calling ou the case of Hurakia, the unanimous decision, of the Council upon the reports and objections before* it was made known to all those interested, viz., that m face of tlie large number of objections (some 44) before the Council, no good end could be served m hearing the evidence, wliich would m the ordinary course last for months, at great waste of time and exjpense. Therefore the Council decided to confirm all. the reports and leave the objectors recourse to appeal to the Chief Judge under section 11 of the Maori Land Laws Amendment Act, 1903. This course the Council consider tihe speediest, and to ensure finality, as it was never contemplated that, the time of the Council sliould be taken up m hearing so many objections against papatipu komiti decisions, and tliat. whatever the Council's orders might be, the Appellate Court, no doubt, would be largely resorted to by dissentients. Section 11, Act 1903, No. 14, and 19 of "1900 was read out." The Hurakia case wag then called, the following note appearing: "The objections were called and dealt with separately, all parties consenting to the course decided by the Council." The Council then ordered the report of papatipu committee to be confirmed. All the other casesi (including those already adjourned to Tuparoa and ie Ararat) were called on this and tlie succeeding day, and similarly dealt with. On the 15th March the sitting was adjourned to Gisborne., and at that place on April 25th the President and two Maori members, Pene Heihi and Apanaia Whanga, constituted the Council, when it is stated "the 'follow-' ! ing cases were called and reports of committees ■ confirmed." Th© names of the blocks are then set out seriatim, with the words "Reports confirmed after them. The orders appealed from bear date the 25th April, 1906., By section 4 of the Act of 1903 the quorum fixed for the Council was the President and not less thaii two Maori members unless the business was of a purely formal nature. It is therefore clear that on the 13th and 14th March, wihen the orders were firstpronounced, there was not a quorum present, and that the Council was not properly constituted to hear the objections, borne doubt on the question must have arisen m the minds of the Council to lead them to bring 'the matter before a properly constituted Council at a latei-'date, but Epanaia Whanga was hot one' of the Council who purported to hear the cases and therefore could' not have prqpeijy exercised • any judicial functions'. ' But ' even assuming that the attempt to get oyer the want of a quorum wu_ ■ successful; ' the' gravest defect to our mind m the orders, and one wliich goes to tlie whole root of the "question, is" that the Council did not give all parties concerned a full opportunity of being heard, but intimated before the eases were cajled that it would confirm the reports without hearing the objectors, leaving the latter to- their remedy of appeal: It is clear that the Council did not attempt to discharge the duty cast upon it by statute, "and an order made under such circumstances is bad. W* must therefore annul the order.