A NATIVE LAND CASE.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 12901, 12 February 1906, Page 6

A NATIVE LAND CASE.

la charging- the* grand v j ary'- sKssi£ ojmsk ; ing of tlie; erinu»aL sessions ttf ; on Montlay, His.; Honour-Mr yitwtie* Edwards referred at., conaiifccv>i(s'"Ttkigtb to t-Ho" prosecutioa of- & by "Margaret Beale, f arciMe deleution of -land in tha tealaisa ' neSr'Rotorua. The factei ssW* His Honour,' were quite clear. Judgment was given ia the Supreme in- Jape, at. the suit of Margaret BeaJte, for the occupation p oi this land. In dtue course the natives L were apiarised of the judgment, but they [ declined to move, but that was r.ot a . criminal act. Th* question was whether s they detained the land forcibly. The facts r were that these natives- irere residing on t. ancestral lands, which h*d been tlieiis be- • fore" the white . man came. . There '*'. )Wy: ) had ,their hapu, their dwelling houses, yum-! i,. Bering 32. a school, and 'a church. ■ IJy ,' some' jugglery in the Native Land Court-' b (an utterly indefensible 'piece of work). , Margaret. Burt .obtained a certificate <;£ title *TdV«afH^^atid r .' : " ; -'"But''theVo was 'xSiisa than

that. When the Native Land Court made} this order certain natives discovered the I fraud, and made an application for a re-1 hearing in due course of law. This un-1 doubtedly should have been granted, but 1 it was not, and the matter was dismissed | by the chief judge of the Court. There! the matter rested. Consequently, without' any authority of the law, and by fraud. Burt obtained the la»:d. which passed into the hands of various persons, and thus i the natives werel deprived of their home* j without- any recompense whatever. Finally the matter came before him. and plain-! tiff obtained judgment for possession. The sheriff went up and demanded possession, as was his duty, just as it was bis (Hi* Honom's> duty, very much against his grain, to give plaintiff judgment. The question they had tti consider was, did th< natives forcibly detain the land? He could not see a shred of evidence in the depositions that they did. The evidence of every witness called showed that the natives were a most law-abiding, peaceable people, and that the worst they had .said was that, if nectssary, they would g»> to gaol. There was no threat, and passive resistance was not an offence, and was exactly what- one might expect from the natives. What could they do? It was no breach of the law if all they did was to sit there until they were turned off. If they had resisted, by force they would have been liable to] indictment in this manner. Tlierc was no \ breach of the law, and if the jury lieia that opinion they should throw out the bill. The law was that it was only forcible detention when it was held in a manner likely to produce a breach of the peace. Some of* the witnesses would»say «■> doubt that they were of opinion that had the Maoris been laid hold of th?y might have resisted, but that would not d». People could hot be made criminals because people thought they might do some thing. His Honour, in conclusion, pointed out that the mere throwing out of the bill would uot prevent plaintiff getting her land by process of civil law. The grand jury returned no bill.