MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAM BRIDGE.

Waikato Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 3492, 10 November 1894, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT, CAM BRIDGE.

A QUESTION OF TITLE.

The ouly case of interest heard at the above Court on Thursday, before Capt Jackson, S.M., was one in which' Edward Douglas—a pakeha Maori—was sued by the Auckland Agricultural Company for £3O damages for trespassing upon the Company's land known as the Okauia block No. la, Mr R. W. Dyer appeared for plaintiffs l , and in opeuing the case said the Company held the land under a certificate of title • under the Land Transfer Act which was issued in 1880. Last September defen'daut with his wife and family went and squatted upon the laud, bnilttwo houses, ploughed some of the land and burnt the fern upon other portions of it. When the Company's manager, Mr J. McCaw, requested defendant to remove he declined to do so, and said theCompiny were the trespassers as his wife and family owned the land. Mr Dyer said he contended that the title was not involved at all and that Mr Douglas had his remedy, under section 57 of "The Land Transfer Act, 1885," against the Registrar General. If Mts Douglas had sustained any loss, her claim was against the Government and not against the Auckland Agricultural Company. Mr Dver then handed in the certificate of title. The first witness called was John McCaw, who deposed: lam the manager of the Auckland Agricultural Company's estates The Company is in possession of part of the Okauia block No. 1, known as No. la. block. I produce the Land Transfer certificate of title for No. la. block which contains 7.719 acres, No cultivation has been done upon the block by the Company. From what I heard I went on sth October to see what Mr Douglas was doing. I found he, his wife, and family had squatted on the land; one house was erected and another in course of erection, some land had been ploughed and planted with potatoes and a good bit of fern had been burnt off, There wtre several waggon loads of agricultural implements there. I told Mr Douglas that he was trespassing, but he informed me I was the trespasser, He said all the land there belonged to his wife and he intended to live and die there and his children's children would do so as well, He said he should not move, so I informed him I should have to take out a summons against him, and he said he was quite prepared for it. I claim .£3O damages and think it a very reasonable amount. Cross-examined by defendant: lam general manager for the Agricultural Company, I have only been the general manager for a little years. All I kuow about the title is the certificate of title that I produce. When I visited you on the land you informed me your wife and family owned the land, I don't know that the Company has been trying >. to put the survey through from time to time, , By the Court/: I do not know of any other title to this land except the certificate produced, I never heard of the land being surveyed. This is the first I eyer heard of anyone disputing the title of the land. t; . .•:.. John Tyson, of Mangawhara, deposed: I'am in the employment of the Auckland Agricultural Company. About the middle of September I found Mr Douglas' and his family squatted on the Okauia No. la. block. I reported the matter to Mr McCaw, and subsequently went with him to see Mr Douglas. Witness then corroborated Mr McCaw's evidence.

Donald Stubbing, surveyor, deposed • I was instructed by Mr McCaw to prepare a plan arid locate the houses erected by ■ Mr Douglas npon Okauia No. 1 a Block. I went upon the land on 27th October and afterwards prepared the' plan I produce, which shows where the houses are erected, the feru burnt, etc. Land cannot be put under Lanpl Transfer unless it is surveyed, but the lines may sot have been cut. Cross-examined by defendant: I ssvear the land has been surveyed, but I will not swear the lines have been cut or that it has been chained. ' 1 have never been stopped from surveying the land. By the Court: I think the survey was done by triangulat'ion, as it was a troublesome time about 1580, and the natives were stopping surveys all over the district. ' The defendant then gave evidence and deposed : My name is Edward Douirias, I : reside on No. 1 Block, Okauia. Iu 18J9 a land court was held in Cambridge for the Okauia Block. My wife, Te Kow'whiti Tuataka, preferred a claim which was heard beforo that court, and the decision was given in her favour and of her children and of other descendants of Tangata and Tokotoko, the ancestors. The- day the decision was given my wife received a wire from Tauranga stating that two of her children were daugerou-ly ill, and required her immediate attention. My wife and her kaiwhakahaere went before the court, handed in their )i>t of names, i.e., herself, children and cousins, -that was done by request of the court. The judge would not admit her cousins as there was nn objection by the tribe. ?o my wife and children only wore admitted. This wii'3 about the sick children whs then handed' in to the court, and the judge told my wife she decision of tho court had been given and the interests of herself and children would be protected. That same day Messrs W. A. Graham and K. A. Whltiiker came and wanted to purchase the interests of my wife and children. They were tcld it conl 1 not be sold as a great proportion of the Okauia Block belong to my Wife. We also told them another court woul 1 be applied for to get the hind üb-d vided amongst the owners. The next day we did not go to Tanrangi. and that ii'ght Mr Wjitakc uimh

Te Kahau and Hihikaua for me and my wife to go up to his place for us to sign a document sanctioning the sub-division of the block ; one portion to be sold to him and 7000 acres to be reserved for the native owners. The natives were also anxious for us to sign the document, and they offered me £ls, and Mr Whitaker offered my wife. a handsome present if she would sign that document, stating that it would not interfere with our interests, as my wife's case had been admitted by the court, and it was requisite for us to do that before they could buy or the natives sell, as the block had been put through as a whole, and without any sub-divisions. We did nob sign the document, and the following morning we went away to Tauranga. About six weeks later I heard they had got rid of my wife and children out of the block altogether. lat once applied for a re-hearing, and wrote the Lands Commissioner and the Native Minister, and also petitioned the House not to give a title to the land, and I have petitioned the House every year from then till now. T afterwards found out that the purchasers, with the help of the Judge, had got rid of my wife and family. When we left Cambridge for Tauranga Mr Whitaker called a meeting of the native owners, and told them they were in diffi. culties; that Douglas and his wife had cleared out and would not swetion the sub-division, and they then asked what was to be doue. The natives said they did not know; he being, a lawyer, he would know best. The matter was left in his hands to fix up by the'natives, and finding that my wife had two third cousins then in Cambridge—Pakitui an d Ramarihi by name-he ascertained that Ramarihi would sell if she was admitted. My wife's counsel objected to this, and there was a row, and the meeting was adjourned. Next night another meeting was held, Ramarihi being present., Mr W. A. Graham' was doorkeeper and would not admit my wife's counsel, but he heard fro.ii a native that they had put Ramarihi in as a substitute for Mrs Douglas and that they were to go before the court next day when the judge would pa'ss the proceedings. Next day'imy wife's counsel and a native of the Ngatiraukawa waited at the court door; the judge,.native assessor, and clerk came in followed by Graham, Whitaker, and several natives. My wife's counsel and the. native tried to get admittance to the court but were refused, and the court doors were locked while the business was passed. I then petioned the House of Parliament for a re-hearing. (Defendant then handed in a number of letters for the court to peruse, amongst them being an offer of a sum of money from the Government to settle the matter.) .Continuing, witne?s said a court was gazetted to have been held in 1891 regarding this very block, but it was adjourned. Cross examined by Mr Dyer: I have taken legal advice on this matter, and I shall be properly represented whsn the matter comes before the- Supreme Court.

By tli'e Court: If my wife stays upon the land I shall stay with her. I have not done any of the work that has been done upen the land, My family did the work. The carts belong to my sons. Edward'; Douglas, son of defendant, deposed: We went on to the Okauia laud because we own it. It is occupied by my mother, brothers sisters and myself, My father lives with us and does nothing but, interpret for niy mother, in fact he leads a gentleman's life. •,The evidence being concluded His Worship nserved judgment till Friday 7th December, 1894.