TE AKAU BLOCK.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 11123, 24 July 1907, Page 1

TE AKAU BLOCK.

. » - (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. - An interesting case came before the Appeal Court to-day. In .1865 the Te Akau block, of 160,000 acres, between the mouth of j&e Waikato river and Raglan, wasi' confiscated, but some 6000 ac_s was returned to loyal native owners of the Ngatitahuriga 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 been at intervals subject to enquiry by courts and commissions. Eventually it was relegated to the Native Appelate Court, which sat in February last, and came to the conclusion that this land had never been confiscated and the Maori customary title still existed; wherefore they confirmed the decisions of 1891 and 1904, awarding the Tainuis 15,000 acres and fixing .the dividing line along the old tribal boundary. "The Tainuis are now appealing on tne grounds of the bias of Judge Browne, and that the Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in taking notice of Maori cuMomary title. A motion was then filed on behalf of the Ngatitahungas 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 Mr Ostler appeared for the whole of the Nga- ■' titahunga tribe; Messrs Bell and Bloomfield for a section of that tribe; Messrs Earl and Morrison for the .Tainui tribe ; and Messrs Skerrett and Findlay for the Judges of the Native Appellate Court. . Mr' Bell 'contended that the Supreme Court h!ad no power to interfere with the Native Appellate Court, that power bang .taken away by section 59 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1895. Mr Ostler followed, citing authorities to show that when a -well-known Court with inherent powers had conferred on, v it a new special jurisdiction, that "jurisdiction 1 should be exercised according to inherent i power. Mr Bloomfield addressed the 1 Cotort -on the facts of the case. The Court then adjourned until to-morrow.