AN UNUSUAL CLAIM.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 12646, 2 June 1919, Page 6

AN UNUSUAL CLAIM.

- ♦_.—_ j NATIVE OR EUROPEAN j LAND? MUTU V. MICHEL, A somewhat unusual claim for Ui« setting aside of a transter of land camo before his Honor Air Justice Hcrdimui a.* the Supreme Court, this morning, fclio ; parties being Baheru Muiiwai Mutu. ■ plaintiff, of Ivainnoi. for whom Mr i> H. Hoggard, of Wellington, appeared. I and Harold Michel, defendant, tanner, ' of Hakitika, who was represented by Mr O. T. J. Alpers, with him Mr K l> j Sargont. j The .statement of claim «efc out that j at tho date of execution of transfer , plaintiff was the owner of an undivided ! live-twcnty-sixths shnrv in a. parcel d , iand bituated in the Hokitika valley, j known us Kowhiterangi, of an area of j 492 ttctos 2 roods or thereabouts. On i or about January 3D, WIS), plaintiff was j induced to .sign a memorandum of trans- i fer or deed of conveyance purpoiting. j to transfer or convey the said share to ; defendant. The transfer was biguod in tho following circumstances-:"-l>e-tendant's agents, F. E. Dale, solicitor, Kaiapoi, and W, D. Barrett, native agent, Faiapot, called upon plain lift' with the transfer without previous communication or negotiation. The transfer was not read by or read over to plaintiff, but it was explained to her that tho price was to bo £2OOO or the Government valuation, whichever was tho higher. Flaintiif had asked Date end Barrett it any person wished to purchase the laud, and received a negative reply. Plaintiff knew that J. H. W. Uru was endeavouring to negotiate a sale to somo person) and she asked Jbarrett whether defendant was the person Uru was acting for. Barrett replied that such was the case. At the time of such interview Messrs Park and Murdoch, of Hokitika, were desirous of purchasing the said land, and had employed Uru to act on their behalf. Plaintiff was formerly the wifo of Uru, member of Parliament, representing the Southern Maori constituency, from whom she obtained a divorce upon tho grounds of cruelty and adultery in 1915. Plaintiff was \ leading Maori chioftainess and was unable to 'lived meeting Uru in relation to such affairs, and she was accordingly anxious to avoid quarrelling with him by refusing to sell the said land. Tho transfer was signed upon the understanding that it was to have no eilocn until confirmed by the Maori Land Board for the district m which the land was situated. Defendant, applied to tho hoard for confirmation of tho transfer, but tho board declined jurisdiction upon the erroneous grounds that tho land w.n European land. Plaintiff contended that tho land was native freehold land and no purchase money had been paid by defendant to plaintiff. Mr Heggard said he attacked the transfer on the following grounds:— (1) That Michel was not a client of Uiu, that plaintiff had signed to avoid cuarrelling with Uru with whom she was in contact as a leading Maori chicftainess, and a. quarrel with Uru meant jeopardising the interests of her people. (2). That the land heiug native freehold land was incapable of alienation without the confirmation of the Maori Land Board. That, if the land is European land all the parties assumed when 'the conveyance was executed that it was native freehold land, and that it was a fundamental mistake which would annul tho transaction. (4) That such a mistake, even if nni-i lateral, would entitle tho plaintiff to) relief. (5) That such a mistake was induced hv defendant's agents informing-plain-tiff that the conveyance would come before the Maori Land BoardI reply to his Houor, Mr Hoggard said that up to the present transfer the land had always been in Nativo hands. Mr Hoggard put in the evidence ot Jndpe Jones, President of the Maori Land Board. llahera Miriwai Mutu, plaintiff, said the persons interested in the. estate were practically all members of her own family, some of them being half-castes, but the majority full-blooded Natives. Plaintiff was interested in several reserves on the West Coast, and. though she had been approached on numerous occasions previously with regard to the sale of same, she had always refused to give her sanction. Uru had no personal interest in the property, but his present wife had. Plaintiff said thai Dale and Edwards had come to her on February 10 and. after explaining to her that they had a buyer for the land willing to give £2OOO, she signed the declaration. 'lt was not till a week or ten days later that she received a letter from defendant's counsel relative to the negotiations. The letter had been wrongly addressed. Dalo and Edwards told her they were anxious to get all the signatures quickly, as the Native I/and Board would he sitting in March. She signed because she understood from Barrett that Michel was Urn's client She had had conflict with-Uru ovct tbri question of a previous sale, and she did not wish to have trouble axrnin. When she signed, plaintiff said, she fully Tolled on tho Native Land Board for tho procuring oF a fair price. When Yho learned that. Michel was "ot Um'a client, she went over to the West Coast, where a ine°tin° r of the property owners was held. The owner of land ad.■soinin<r had refused fil% nn acre for liji land. Offe-s of £22<"o. £3OOO and £nooo had sin°e been made for her wonsrtv. She had not received, nor had shei been offered, a penny of the purchase' money, neither had sb<* been :>«hed to" sifM nnv succession orders. Plah'-iiff said that*Uru, heinrr a member of Parliament, had a hi": influence, and sho did not wish to hamper the interests rf nenplo. In reply to Mr Alpers, witness said she had never anpeared in Native Land Courts on behalf of other Natives, only in cases in which her property was concerned. She knew the difference between Native and European land- She also knew that purchased laud had not to go before the Native Land Board. At tho interview between Dale and Barrett and herself she did not know that the property had teen purchased land. She did not say to the gentlemen named that £2OOO was a good price because the Natives had only paid £4OO for it in the first place. She was unaware that the land was anything j else but a Native reserve, it originally being a fishing ground- She had received a registered letter from defen- ! dant's counsel at Leeston. but she had ' not received any other registered letter. Barrett was a trustee in the estate on behalf of his children, and he had also signed the transfer. She had not figured out what her share would be, but Dale had mentioned that it would -bo about £IOO. Plaintiff said the conversation took place in the English language except for a few Maori sentences which she addressed to Edwards regarding him. She translated these words into English so that- Dale would understand About eight or ten owners attended the meeting on the West Coast, and all nfrond t« object- to tho transfer. Some of them had withdrawn from the action after the decision given by the Native Land Board. At Mr Alness's request plaintiff translated portion of a letter written in Maori by fo her eonsin.(Proceeding.)