THE NGAWAKAKUPE BLOCK.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1484, 5 July 1912, Page 9

THE NGAWAKAKUPE BLOCK.

WAS THERE FRAUD? COURT OF APPEAL TO DECIDE. "Mr. Skerrett will deal with .this in an angry manner," said Mr. 11. D. Bell, K.C., somowhnt jocularly in Uio" Court oi' Appeal yesterday just after Mr. Skorrett had expressed disagreement with a statement made by Mr. Bell. "Mot. at all," retorted Mr. Skerrett, who-o remark was followed by ono from Mr. Denniston: "Vigorous, but not angry, Mr. Bell!" The discussion was over matters pertaining to a leaso of Native land, and tho appeal was from a recent decision of the Supremo Court. On the Bench yesterday were Mr. Justice Williams, Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justico Edwards, and Air. Justico Chapman. Tho appellants wore William ITarris and Thomas Harris, sheep-farmers, of Martiuborough, and tho respondent was Martha M'Gregor (formerly -Martlm Mahupuku), wifo of Georgo Stewart M'Gregor, shecp-furiner, of Greytown. Tho respondent recently attained tho ogp of " jirfll. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr. C. B. Morison, appeared for tho appellants (Harris), ancl Mr. C. P. Skerrett, IC.C., with him Mr. I'. E. Ward, appeared for tho respondent (Martha M'Gregor). The Original Action, In tho original notion in tho Supremo Court, Martha M'Gregor asked for a declaration that a certain lease (held by tho defendants, Harris) and tho confirmation of it were null and void and should therefore bo removed from the registry. Tho District, Land Registrar, Wellington, who was a party to tho action, did not appear, but submitted to tho judgment ot tho Court. The caso was heard before tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in April last. In the statement of claim it was then set out that, on April 1, 1593, Hamuera Tamahau Mahuputcu and Horiana Natanahira leased to Charles Horris (father of tho defendants, Harris) for a term of 21 years, 61G9 acres of land, known as tho Ngawakaluipo Block. Tho memorandum of lease was not only contrary to statute, but the leaso was granted at a grossly inadequate rent. It was in fact granted by tho two Natives to William and Thomas Harris (as the nominees of.Chas. Harris) from feelings of friendship to tho father, and out of gratitudo for financial Assistance, which the latter had rendered to Jlahupuku. In addition tho lcaso was to commence in futuro. When application was mado to tho Native Land Court (presided over by Judgo Macltoy) to confirm tho memorandum of lease, it was not granted, and, according to Martha M'Gregor, tho negotiations wera then abandoned and not reopened until after Mahupuku's death, which occurred on January 14, 1001. Martha Jlahupuku, who was then 14 years of age, was appointed his successor to tho block, H. Stratton Izard, solicitor, being appointed her trustee.

On. August 3, 1904, William .ind Thomas Harris made another application for the confirmation of the lease, this tirao to the Native Land Court (presided over by Judge- Gilbert Mair) at Wellington. A valuation was ordered, and, though there was no record of such valuation, an order (without authority of law and without further hearing) was issued by tho Court on August 3, 1904, purporting to confirm tho document, which purported to bo a memorandum of lease.'

This order was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as tho order of Judge Macltay was final, and had not been sot aside. Moreover, the Court had no jurisdiction •to confirm the leaso on account of tho fuct that the grantor was dead. In addition to this it was alleged that the arrangement between H. S. Iznrd (Martin Malmpuku's trustee) and tho defendants, Harris, to consent to tho eon.firmatiou of tho lease, and to the proceedings, which resulted in the confirmation, was (to tho knowledge of Wnl. and Thos. Harris) a collusive arrangement, and a fraud on Martha Malmpuku's rights and . interests because that arrangement contemplated a lease, at a grossly inado.quato rental, and al=o a. direct payment of .£SOO to Izard. This was in violation of the law, and both Izard and tho defendants, Harris, knew, or ought to have- known, that the interests of Martha Mahupuku (then a minor) woro being sacrificed under the arrangement. Original Defence, By way of defence, William and Thomns Harris said that a proper valuation was submitted before the Court adjudicated. They wero proprietors of tho leasehold estate created by tho leaso duly registered (without fraud) under the provisions of' the Land Transfer Act, -upon which they relied. They denied that tho lease was illegal, or void, that the rent was inadequate, or that motives prompting Mahupuka to grant tho lease wero as Martha M'Grcgor now alleged. Further, they declared that the proceedings for confirmation of tho lease were not abandoned after tho first application, nnd tho order of August .1, 1004, was (they maintained) valid. While they admitted that it had been the duty of Iznrd to safeguard Martha Mahupukn's interests, they denied that tliero was any collusion or "fraud in tho negotiations, which led to tho obtaining of the lease, and also denied tho statement thiit the minor's interests wero sacrificed. How the Supreme Court Decided. In tho course of his judgment, delivered on April 18 last, Ms Honour said that thero was no doubt that tho lease was at a gross undervalue and tho "lowness of the rent was even ridiculous," as tho capital value in November, 1910, was, it is stated, ,£15,225.

Then, after referring at length to tho various phases of the transaction on which tho ease hinged, his Honour continued:—"l am of opinion that this confirniation and tho lcaso are both null and void. Tho question arises, however, as suming that they aro both null and void, whether, seeing registration has been effected, that registration is not conclusive y>

The various cases cited did not, in tho learned Judge's opinion, seem to affect the niatttr, for there was no caso exactly like this one in the numerous New Zeolnnd authorities referred to.

His Honour, therefore, concluded:—"l am of opinion that nnle?s tho defendants (an successfully contend that once a deed is placed on Hio registry, however improperly placed, that it must remain for ever therc. This i<; a case in which tho relief asked should bo granted. ... It was that something dishonest or morally wrong must be proved before tho registration .could bs interfered with. If obtaining a loase from a Maori at a gross undervalue, if concealing tho true bargain both from Hie solicitor'that drew up tho lease and from the Court, if not csrrvinj; out tho bargain, if making a r.cw Wgain with a trustee who did not purport lo nlisnc. if not talcing stops to bring tho person whose properly was affected— thn infant—before tho Court, was not mornllv wrong, Ihoro must, ] tliir.lc. be a Tio.v: definition of tho phrasn 'morally wrong. , ]f it: was ncccwury to deride the question o» that fooling i' should have nn he'itoiian in Faying Ihot the defendants must havo known tlint they were acting in a way that was morally wrong in obtaining tho Ions". As I have already raid, I am of opinion that the Court had no jurisdiction to do what was dono, and that both tho. leaio and confirmation were void." Judgment was accordingly rriven for plaintiff with costs according to scalo as if .MHO had boon claimed. From this decision, tho defrndnnts now appealed on tho ground that, it was erroneous in Uw ;inil fncf. Argument proceeded throucrhonl the day and had not coprimlci! at MO p.m. whoii (ho Court adjourned until 10.SO n.m. lo-