NATIVE LAND MATTERS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 564, 20 July 1909, Page 6

NATIVE LAND MATTERS.

JUDQMEMTB DELIVERED, TJiK IfOJWWHBNTJA I»7/)CK, Tho Native- Land Court yesterday delivered judgment in it easo f<il4tifig to tt)« HorowheiiUtt Block, which v/m partly hftttd by Jodge I'&lmw Mid the late .fudge* lltmo, at iwin, in J him, JiiKi, when An application WM'nuufo U) ilolofriifn« tfie finrneA of the members of.the Nealir/iuloivca tribe, who we e-nlitlsd k> ft block of 182 acrwi of land in the llotowhonua district, and fo perfect such onkr, and, if neceiv Siiry, to partition the land nir»ong tbo persons <>iilitlod to it. '/'he suli/fli<*i67i of ft list of unifies to tlio Coiift for inclusion in the title v/ns deferred until ft later sitting, which was hold on the 12th of the prtMint month, whon a list wm was submitted by Jirtiftra Nicholson. An application wm then tiiwltf by Kipa Whftldiitil tb have thii name 6f his wifo Iloni inserted fn tho list/ This vm opposed by Wicholson, 'i'he Court, in the judgment which was delivered yesterday, stated that Henl Wbatanni's claim was based on the ground (1) that she was entitled to ho included as an owner according to Maori custom, and (2) that she was equitably entitled to bo m included, Menming that she had the right to disregard all prevlons and l(o hack to the tfift of the land by To Kaujmrnta to Heni's ancestor, 'fe Whatsnci, prior to l£lo. Heni'fl claim was not recognised by the CofTiniifsion of lKifi nor by the Motowhenwa Block Act, IKX3, but th<> Act of IMC authorised the Court "in ascertain what Natives were er|iiitalily entitled" to that land. The Conrt hold that the gift to To Whatanni was to occupy and hold the land against omrni&i, and this holding was no longer necessary affxn , ISO), when according fo a decision of tho Land Court, the law of force ceafed, Tleni and hw mother and grandmother were Ngajmhis, and had lrvod among that tribe, and Tleni did not come to the Otaki district until 18C9, and «he had no title in Maori custom and no equitable claim to tho land. She had not resided on it, or spent one penny npon it, or upon defending iti title. Tho Conrt, therefore, rejected her claim, and annonnoed that three orders wonld bo mado in accordance with the list handed in by Nicholson's party, the owrftrs in each respective order to hold in cqnat shares. ' MISTAKEN IDENTITY. Tho Native Appellate Coart, Jndges Jones and Fishtr. on the Uench, delivered judgment in respect of an appeal from an order of the Chief Judge, dated May 23, 1909, and made for the purpose,of rectifying an error of the Native Land Conrt, wherein Eetimana V/hiwhi and Karewa Ketiinana, whoso names appear in the' title to Torcamona 2b and 2c, wero treated as one and the same person. So far as the orScr declared them to be separate persons, there was no dispute, but the Chief Judge, assuming a.succession order of September 23, 1903, to have l)eeii duly made, declared Ran Karewa te Whiwhi to be the proper successor of Eetimana Whiwhi, deceased, and against this, the appeal was taken, Karewa Eetimana claiming to be entitled to share in such decision. The Court decided to vary the Judge's order so far as to allow the succession order of September, 1908, to be annnlled with the object ofienabling the Native Land Court to determine the matter as if such order had not been made. ;.■ ' ' -.-■'