THE PUKEKURA CASE.

Te Aroha News, Volume III, Issue 106, 13 June 1885, Page 3

THE PUKEKURA CASE.

The Crown Grant Declared Invalid,

Judgment was delivered on July 8 by His Honor Mr Justice Gillies in the Pukokura and Pauhoo cates, in which To Raihi and others v. Harete Tamihana and others, in the nani63 of thirteen natives who claim an interest in a cortain block of land known as Pukekura, in tho Waikato district, containing 8, 393 acres, claimed to set aside a Crown grant. The block was by Crown grant dated August 4, 1S70, granted to ten other natives, eight of whom, and the legal representatives of two deceased grantees, are made dofendants. The ten grantees in 1S70 leased the land to Mr Douglas, who assigned his intorest to Messrs Grice and Benn, who are also joined as defendants. One only of the grantees has appeared to defend Messrs Grice and Benn. The Attorney-General also appears, but stated that the Crown stands impartial in the matter. The main claim of the plaintiffs is that the Crown grant may be repealed or declared void, as well as certain proceedings of the Nativo Land Court on which it is founded. There are certain subsidiary claims for relief, dependant on the validity or invalidity of the Crown grant. His Honor having disposed of some preliminary questions of procedure, and, examining the nature of the ba^is on which the Crown grant rested, said : — <4 Iti3 perfectly clear that when, in 1SGS, tho Court finally adjudicated as to the ownership of the land, and as to the person in whose favour the certificate was to issue, that adjudication, whether right or wrong, could not be altered by the sham adjourned hearing of 1SG9. Nor could tho Chief Judgo summarily rescind his certificate, issued to tho Governor in pursuance of the adjudication of 18(38, even if it wero erroneous, by merely tearing it up and substituting another under the illegal adjudication of 1SG9." His Honor then entered at considerable length into various legal issues arising out of the case, and concluded : " I am therefore of opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to tho relief claimed in the firot two paragraphs in their prayer, viz :— 1. That the grant bo declared null and void. 2. That the second set of orders and certificates be declared null and void. What, then, would be the position of the various parties to this suit ? Tho plaintiffs would be registered ownei'3 according to native cu&ti-m The native defendants would be certificated owners according to nativo custom, and as such entitled to a Crown grant, if tho Government should think fit to issuo one, and entitled to mako valid leases for 21 years, they being trustees for themselves and tho registered owners, whilst the defendants, Grico and Benn, holding a 21 years' leaso from the ten already declared by tho Court of Appeal (Aniwaata v. Grico, N Z.L.K., 2 App., c. 11G) to be valid as founded on that certificate, would be liable to account only to the ten for tho rents, and the ten to the registered reslui que trusts for their interests. As to the future applications for subdivision, it seems to me that a majority of the native plaintiffs and defendants have a right, under section 17, 18(55, to apply for a subdivision. As to the alternative prayer, par. 8, I see no objection to it striking out the words, "and that as such trustees they are not entitled to doal wii< Pukekura without the consent of the plaintiffs. " As to the prayer for costs, it eeems to me that where a grant is repealed, not on the ground of the wrong-doing of the grantees, but on account of the mistake of tho officers of the Crown by which the plaintiffs have been injured, no costs should be allowed. Decree to be drawn up accordingly. A similar judgment was given with regard to the Puaboe Block. Mr E. HesKeth asked if the judgment went so far qb to deal with defendants' (Grice and Benn'e) right to costs? Their title had been held good. His Honor said no costs would be £llowed.