AN INVOLVED TITLE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17235, 15 April 1930, Page 6

AN INVOLVED TITLE

GIFT OF NATIVE LAND APPEAL COURT HEARING Sitting at Auckland recently the Native Appellate Court was called upon to unravel a decidedly involved land dispute which had its origin in a raid by Hongi Hi La, over ICO years ago. The case was one of the n ost interesting placed before the Appellate Court for some time, having been brought within the jurisdiction of the court by consent of Parliament, on the petition of interested parties. When Hongi was scourging the northern part of the island in the year 1828, he raided the Dargaviile natives and sent them flying for refuge to some Hokianga tribes, who gave them shelter and later returned them to their lands in the Dargaviile district. Their action was not forgotten, and years later, when one of the Hokianga chiefs had gained some note as a prophet, lie was invited with some of his followers to settle in the Dargaviile district. Wo that there should be no doubt as to the nature of the invitation, application was made to the Native Land Court to vest certain land in Abraham, and, the application being granted, the “prophet” and some of his enthusiasts settling down to cultivate the land and to build a place of worship. Abraham died full of years, after willing the land to his widow, this causing no objection at the time, the liapu of Abraham continuing to occupy the land. Later when the widow died, her will vested the land in four connections of Abraham, and still things went on as usual, and there was no disturbance of the occupants of the land. Modern ideas began to gain ground among the younger members of Abraham’s iiapu, however, and concurrently the word of the chiefs began to lose weight: a movement to partition out the Land of the tribe was set- afoot, and it was then found that they had no title. In the meantime the land had been mortgaged, and the mortgagee had taken action, but so that tlie should not be thrust out of occupation the Government bad made arrangements under whioo tile land was recognised as native land, and held under lease, the rentals being allocated to pay off the amount due to the mortgagee. OWNER OR TRUSTEE? It was contended that Abraham had only been a nominal owner and it was euueavoted to sliow that he had held the land as tiustee. But owing to tlie land Having become Euiopean laud through the transfer to a European mortgagee, no advantage coiid be taken of the law regarding trustees of native land. . A petition was submitted to Parliament, and the Native Appellate Court was authorised to hear the matter as if the land we: e still in native hands. Then an addi.ioiml complicatiot arose, some members of the original tribe coming forward to state that as the land was a gift to Abraham in the first place, and as Abraham had died without issue, it should go back to the original tribe » which had made tlie gift Even if the . land had been willed, it w r as argued, the wills were invalid, since the Maori custom of gifted 'and returning to the donors oould prevail over any rights of those in residence on the land. Curiously enough, the people to whom the land was "willed had made mo objection to this argument in the lower court, but they did seek to appear" in the Native Appellate Court, and this added to the tangle which the higher tribunal had to unravel. Eventually the Native Appellate Court decided that while the evidence supported the argument that Abraham bad intended the land to be for his hapu as well as for himself, still it could not be said that no evidence existed to support the action of the lower court. The Native Appellate Court did not consider that the Maori custom of land returning to the donors could reasonably apply in this case, while the validity oE the will made hv Abraham was not open in the proceedings taken to declare a trust. With regard to the successor to Abraham who sought to appeal, it was found that he was in practically the same position as before, being entitled to one-quarter of the estate. The appeal was dismissed, and the present occupiers confirmed in their title to the land.