AN INTERMINABLE CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1094, 5 April 1911, Page 5

AN INTERMINABLE CASE.

'A CART-LOAD OF EVIDENCE,

(By Telegraph.-Snccial Correspondent.) Auckland,' April i.

- Taihoaism is a disease which affects a Tvide area in tho North Island. What the word "taihoa" means, and all its exasperating bearing on settlement, is well told in an interesting report furnished to the "Herald" this morning by its Taumarunui correspondent. He says: Another act of the drama of the Pukuweka Block case has been played, but it is by no means tho final ono The- cast- is a New Zealand replica of tho famous Chancery suit described by Dickens in "Bleak House." The evidence given during its many hearings since the year ISB6 is so voluminous that tha bulky tomes containing it had to be brought in an express cart to the Native Appellate Court lately sitting at Taumarunui.' For days previously the Natives interested had ' been assembling from all points of tho compass. None of the Natives wero required to give evidence, except To Heu Hen, a great rangatira. The block is at present paying considerable timber royalties, and these are to some extent being held over till the rightful owners are ascertained. The Court for several days'went through ponderous argument and endless reading of old evidence from, the shabby manuscript volumes. At last the final stages approached, the rival tribesmen crowded the court, many sitting on the floor and even around counsel's table.- Hikiaha, the picturesque chief and reciter of the "Wakapapas," was confidently anticipating a favourable verdict confirming that given by Judge Holland last year. At this stage counsel questioned the jurisdiction of the Court. The layman, owing to, his lack of legal training, is unable to understand why the jurisdiction of the Court should not have been questioned long .before tho enormous expense of tho hearing was incurred. Much elaborate argument was adduced to show that the tribunal before which counsel had been pleading in all apparent good faith for the previous few days was not, a"s a matter of fact, competent to try the case at Jill.

It is Teally wortli while to glance at the main course of the argument. This case was first heard by Judge Mair in 1886, then by Judge Gudgeon in 1897, and on appeal by Judges ■Mair-'and Scannell ;„in 1900. Then it seemed to be at rest for ever, but Parliament, being moved thereto by petition, appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into, the facts, with the result that it was reopened, and came before Judge Gilfedder in 1908. An appeal against this decision was heard the. same year by Judges Seth Smith and M'Cormick,. and for ■ some reason it was heard again" by Judge Holland last year in 'Taumarunui. His decision 'was •promptly appealed against, and the case brought before the present Court, consisting of Judges M'Cormack and Rawson, Now,- calling these tribunals in turn A, B, CD, etc., the contention is that since B upset and cancelled A, and C came alonrr and qmrhed B. therefore A should stand in its entirety: but after C the Parliamentary intervention came, which it is urced completely, disposed nf A, B. and C, find made a fresh start with D. Whether E is entitled to r>ay any regird to the proceedings of A, B. and C is of course an )mportar,t matter to settle. When one nf the counsel wns nsked his opinion on this f-oint h» shook his bead sadly, and said he > would want two days to consider th» point. It i« a verv pretty nnarrel ns it ptands, as Sir Lucius would say. A cn*3 Hll bo stated'for the Supreme <"'iurt, all three counsel conenrnnf as to the nec«ssitv of this course. If the Rurreme Court dwide? against th« jurisdiction of the NaKv<\ Appellate Court, the rase w''l probably be sent back to some lower Court. ■