AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXII, Issue 100, 5 June 1900, Page 2

AN IMPORTANT DECISION.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE V. A. H. MOORE. At the S.M. Court on Monday, Mr, R. L. Stanford gave wiitten judgment as follows in the case of the Public Trustee v. A. H. Moore, heard last week The Public Trustee iu th ; s case sues defendant to recover rent of section 95, block 1, Opunake, under the following circumstances: 'lhe land in question was granted to Matui Kuumati and Rona Raumati on October 31, 1882, in virtue of provisions contained in the { West Coast &>ti lenient Acts, 1880 and 1881. Un the sth September, 1882,' Uie above two natives leased the said i laud to A. H, Moorefor 21 years. On! October 7th, 1882, A. H. Moore assigned Jiis interest under the said

lease to E. R. Morgan, the assignee then becoming subject to the payment of tho rent, although up to September 29th, 1894, A. H. Moore paid the same to Mr. Samuel, on behalf of the native owners. It is contended that this lease, in order to be valid, should have been made with the concurrence of the Public Trustee, acting under section 7 of the West Coast Settlement Act, 1881. There is no doubt that at tke present time the fee simple of the land in question is vested in the Public Trustee by the West Coast Settlement Act, 1892, section 4, " subject to' all valid leases and contracts," and the question I am asked to determine is whether Mr. Moor© comes within the section of the West Coast Settlement Act, 1887, section 7, which says that when the transfer or assignment of a lease has bean consented to by the lessor in writing, then the transferror shall be discharged from all liability in respect of rent reserved or covenants and conditions contained in the lease. Whether the lease was originally a valid lease in the absence of the concurrence of the Public Trustee I do not feel called upon to determine, as I think that under the Land Transfer Act, 1885, it is now good for all purposes, and it is not for the lessee or assignee to dispute its liability; he is, indeed, stopped from doing so. Section 6of the West Coast Settlement Act, 1887, applies, I think, only to leases by the Public Trustee, or confirmed by him under the special provisions of the Act of 1881. In the regulations of February 13, 1883, I find that "lessor" means "Trustee as defined by the Act," and " Trustee," as defined by the Act of 1881, means "Public Trustee." The word "lessor" in the West Coast Settle-i ment Act, 1887, section 6, must be held to mean the Public Trustee, and a tenant holding from a native cannot claim the benefit conferred by section 6. It appears that the Public Trustee, though his concurrence is not shown in the lease to have been granted or indeed asked for, is compelled by the West Coast Settlement Act, 1892, to accept it as a valid lease, and he is, therefore, entitled to all the legal rights of an owner who has assented to the transfer of a lease, I have now only to deal with the question: was the land afiected granted to Matui and Ronain reward for special services rendered to i the Crown prior to the Act of 1880? The onus of proving this lies with defendant, and he has not sucpeeded in doing so, Prom the appendices of the proceedings of the House of Representatives and the final report of the Commissioners 1883 it seems quite clear that the land was not granted for special services, no note to that effect appearing in the final list of grants, although there is gome ground for saying that a suggestion had been made that the two natives should be granted land for special service. Judgment for plaintiff. Mr. Samuel appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr. Kerr for defendant.

Notice of appeal was given, an ap plication to take the case direct to the Court of Appeal being granted.