APPEAL COURT

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13483, 24 July 1907, Page 5

APPEAL COURT

NATIVE LAND DISPUTE.

(Pcr 4 Prep* Association.)

WELLINGTON, July 22.

An interesting Native case came before the Appeal Court to-day. In 1865 the Te Akau Block of 160,000 acres, between the mouth of the Waikato River and- Raglan, was confiscated, but some 95,000 acres was returned to loyal Native owners of the Ngatitahunga and Tainui tribes. There were thirty members of the latter and fifty-eight of the former. Ever since thenr the, proper allocation of this land has beenin dispute and been at intervals subject to inquiry jby the Courts and Commissions. Eventually it was relegated to the Native Appellate Court, which sat in February last, and came to the conclusion that this land had never been confiscated, and that the Maori customary title. still existed ;- wherefore they confirmed the decisions of 1891 and 1904 awarding the Tainuis 15,000 acres apd fixing tne dividing line along an. old tribal boundary. The Tainuis are now appealing oil : the grounds that Judge Brown was biassed, and that.the Court had exceeded its jurisdiction :in -taking notice of a Maori customary title 1 . A motion, was then filed onjbehalf of the Ngatiahinga to strike out the motion for prohibitionon the ground jbhsib ; the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interfere with a decision .of die Native Appellate- Court was expressly taken away by section §9 of the Native Land Law Amendment Act, 1895* Both motions were, by coasent, removed into- the Court of Appeal * Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., and with hirf'Mr H. H. Ostler, appeared for the whole of the Ngatitahunga tribe, Mr. Bell and Mr Blomfield for a section of that tribe, Mr Earl and Mr Morrison for the Tairui tribe, and Mr Skerrett and Dr. Findlay for the Judges of the Appellate Court. Mr Bell contended that the Supreme Court had no power to interfere with the Appellate Court, that .power being 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 Courij with inherent powers had conferred on it new and special jurisdiction, that jurisdiction should be exercised according to the inherent powers. Mr Blomfield addressed the Court on the facts of the case. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.'

Mr Morrison, on behalf of plaintiffs, argued that the Supreme Court's power to prohibit the Native Appellate Court was not taken away by. the Act of 1895. He contended that, in spite /of sections in that Act, where the Ap--pellate Court manifestly exceeded its powers, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to prohibit was not taken away.