LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 11110, 6 May 1911, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL.

.THE HOROWHENUA BLOCI^

JVHO ARE THE OWNERS?.

The much litigated question of tho ownership of Horowhenua No. 11, ■ a block of Nativo land near Levin, reached tho Court of Appeal yesterday, when counsel for Nirihaua Kingi Piiihi and all tho other Natives having a like interest with him, moved that the judgment given by Sir Robert Stout, on August: 19, 1910, bo set aside as erroneous in point of law, and that the order of tho Native Appellate Court,, dated September 20, 1893, and all subsequent orders and titles affecting the land, bo quashed. , On the Bench were Mr. Justice Williams (presiding) Mr. Justice Chapman, and Mr. Justice Sim. ' Reference to the previous history ot tho case shows that in 189S the Nativo Appellate-Court,-in purporting to act under Section' 4 of tho Horowlieuua .Block Act, 1896, made an order regarding Division 11, and from that _ order omitted the names of certain Natives that it was contended ought to have been inserted therein. Tho names of the persons whoso exclusion was complained of; or their ancestors, were in tho original list of 143 persons appearing in Schedule 6 of tho Horowlicnua Block Act, and tho case was brought into tho Siipremo Court on an applicatiou for a eertiorari to quash tho order of the Appellate Court, on tho ground that that tribunal, in excluding the names ; referred to, had exceeded its jurisdiction. This application, was dismissed by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), in the judgment now appealed against. In explaining the point'at.issue, ho stated that the contention of counsel for the applicants was that, as the Supremo Court and Court of Appeal had determined that there was a trust in Block 11 in favour of tho 143 persons mentioned in the sixth schedule of the Horowhenua Block Act, the function of tho Court was not to determine who were tho persons entitled to bo declared the beneficiaries, hut simply to apportion 3ie estatoamongst the 143 persons and tho 48 persons named in tlio second schedule; r in fact,' ,, that all the function that the Court had to perform was to ascertain the individual interests of these 191' persons. They would have had power, if this were tho proper interpretation, to give, perhaps, a majority of them only, a square foot each or a square inch each, as had been done in some determinations of Nativo title by Nativo Land Courts, and in so doing the interests of some of the 143 persons might have got would have been purely nominal. This was not the view that had been taken by Mr. Justice Dennistou in regard to Horowhenua No. 14, and, further, in his Honour's own opinion, if the function of the Native Appellate Court had been confined to defining the interests, tho Legislature would have said so. Ho held that the Native Appellate .Court could consider who were beneficially entitled to Block 11, and to enable them to arrive at a conclusion they had a right to consider how the block had been divided, and what interests 'the original owners (that is the list of 143) had acquired in dther parts of the original b\ock. As ho -understood ' the : case, that was .exactly what the Court did. On this and other grounds, lie was of opinion that on the merits there was nothing to show that the Nativo Appellate Court exceeded its jurisdiction. He accordingly dismissed the application. ' The.. appellants against this decision were represented yesterday in the Court of Appeal by Mr. P. E. Baldwin, of Palmerston North; Mr. J. W. Salmond, Solicitor-General, appeared for tha .Chief Judge of the Native Appellate Court; and other Natives interested were represented by Mr. A. A. S. Menteath and Mr. M. Luckio.

Argument was unfinished when the Court adjourned until Monday.

FOXTON PROPERTY CASE. JUDGMENT RESERVED. - Argument in. the case of Stansell y. Easton and Austin, relating to certain property at Foxton, was concluded in the Court .of Appeal yesterday. Their Honours reserved judgment. )