AN OLD DISPUTE.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14578, 8 April 1918, Page 2

AN OLD DISPUTE.

JUDGMENT IN WHANGARA BLOCK CASE. In the Native Land Court on Saturday Judge Jones delivered judjgment irr a matter arising out of the sale by natives of the Whangara block nearly 50 years ago. Tin's * sale was a source of litigation for years until eventually m 1894 the Validation Court, specially set up for such cases, took the matter. in hand, 'and for the 58 interests he bought, the purchaser* by arrangement got some 4500 acres of freehold, and a lease over 3900 acres. Tlie court also defined the interests of the natives, .and irr tlris process discovered the sellers, according to native custom, were entitled' to more than the 4500 acres, and the balance oyer that amount was awarded' to them. Iri this way an apparent anomaly arose tlrat some who had sold had; m cases, greater interests than some who had' not . sold. Some portion of the sellers' shares 'were put irr the leasehold block where they had no* ancestral right, apparently for . financial reasons m connection with the litigation. Nothing was heard of the matter* till the' lease' was' about expiring, when the natives, desiring; a partition, found! tlmt part of the land must be; awarded to. those they claimed wero. m the block, irot only without ancestral right, but also had sold their interests. They then petitioned Parliament, which passed legislation enabling the court to* inquire into tlie circumstances, and* if it though fit to amend the relative interests m the block -referred to. The judge at •the hearing intimated that ho did not think anything could bo done, but said the circumstances were so peculair that .ho would, before giving judgment, go thoroughly into the matter arrd see rf any relief could be granted. In the formal judgment, after hearing the facts, the court held that it could not by any amendment deal justly and equitably between the parties. 'Hie Validation Court having lrteld them entitled to the supposed •.■•-••surplus, from the sale they rirust get that somewhere, and unless the court had the whole block before it so that these people could be placed m tho position where their other interests were, it was not possible to rectify the matter. The statute, irr the court's opinion, did not authorise it to wholly exclude these people, nor to interfere Avith the other portions of the block. Even if it had the latter power after the long lapse of time andi the dealings with the "kflock, it would ' be difficult to work" out any equitable scheme of adjustment. Under those circumstances tho court declined to make any amendment. ■