Matte Laid Dispute.

Thames Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 10302, 24 July 1907, Page 4

Matte Laid Dispute.

— m — _._AN_ IMPORTANT CASE. DIYKIONI OF TE AKAU, BLOCK. OfUBSTION OF POWERS OF "(Pjer United P^e^s Association.) * ' ' W^SLIjMtON, July 23. - An interesting: native cMfeiofoe 4>to fore the Appeal Court to-day. In 1865 the Te Akaurbjr** of, n6(fcQoo acres between the mouth of the Wai : 1 kaio River atidi CRfc^in wa* 'con-, fisoated, but some 90,000 acres was returned to th« loyal native owners of the Ngrtitahungtb and Taimii tribes. There *ererthir*yv members of the litter and 58 of the formier. Ever since then the proper allocation of this this land has been in> dispute, and has .been-at.intervals the subjopt of. in,quity»bytlie Courts andXSwonissions. Eventually it was relegated ta^the Native Appellate. Court which s&t in February lartii-andVeanie ta.ttheviw^ elusion that this: land had never been confiscated, and ther Maori title still existed, wherefore they confirmed the decisions of 1891 and 19f1f4, awarding the Tafnuis 15,000 acres and filing the dividing 1 lines along the old tribal"boundjsq^ : i The Taimiis are now appealing on the grounds of baas of Judge-Browne, and that the <V«-* had exceeded its jurisdiction in jtasnl;*TOisee of< ijhe Maori customary title Motion was then filed on behalf oi,Nffatitahung|a to strike gut the motion for prohibi-: I*^^ 6o jujasdicr! taonKf "the Supreme Court to prohibit the native appellate was expressly taken away .by section .-59 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Alciti of, .. ißss»^,B^th,,m6tions -.were by removed into the Court of Appeal. Mf Bell, K.C., and) Mr Obtler ap--piifisr!b?*he'whole ofihe Ngatiten hunca teibe,, Messrs Bell and Blom'fieM far* section of that tribe, and Messrs Earl and Morison for the Tainui, *nd l^ssrs %errib6, K.C., .and FrndlayLfoil the Jjgges of the Appellate Owrt^i ,-^7 r . yi^ I Mr Bell vo6ntendell' that Oie Supreme Count had no power to interfere with tfc« '«'—l'jitA ffttirt} that power being taken away %■'section 59 of Native Land Laiws Amendment Act, 1895. ' . M* followed, citing authorities to show that when a well-known a Court with inherent powers had conferred on it a new special i^diption. that iiirisdiotion should Tbe exercised acwwdiiHS to the inherent! powers. 'fevfiM^W*''' <"^\ vW** d the Gmti on the fnets of flic case, and the Court adjourned until to-morrow