LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1683, 25 February 1913, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. (Before Hi] Honour Mr. Justice Sim.) WRIT OF MANDAMUS SOUGHT/ MAORI LAND CASE. i • -^. A writof mandamus, to compel a Maori Land Board to confirm . a transfer of Nativo land, was asked for in an action heard in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Uis Honour Mr. Justice Sim. The parties -were Daniel Hannnn, the youngjr, farmer- of Levin, plaintilt', and the lkaroa District Maori .Land Board, and Lindsay Bank Barron, farmer, of Levin, defendants. : ' Originally Lindsay Banks Barron was not a, deiendant, out .before argument commenced yesterday, his Honour ton tlie application of Mr. aiycrs) made an order joining him (Barron), it being understood that tno plaintiff (Hannah) should have an opportunity of answering affidavits filed By Barron, if this was later found to be necessary. v . Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for Hannnn, the Attorney-General (the Hon. A. L. Herdmtju) appeared for tho Land. Board, and Mr. M. Myers ■ appeared for Barron. A block' of land, known as Horowheriua 118, 11 South G subdivision 2, formed the ground for action. A Native, named AVirihana Hunia, had an interest in this to the extent of 55 acres. According to the statement of claim, Wirihana Hunia.agreed, to sell his interest to Lind-; say Banks Barron for the sum -of .£BSO. The application for confirmation of the transfer came before the Ikarba District Maori Land Board on October 13, 1911, but, before'it. was confirmed/Wirihana. Hunia came to an 'arrangement with Barron whereby the later would resell the; land to Wirihana Hunia at any, time iip to May 20, 1912,' provided certain conditions were fulfilled. Briefly, these conditions were that Wirihana Hunia was. to. pay the price at which Barron had purchased the land, and also pay 'for • any improvements, together with costs and interest, while Barron, was to'have the right to lease the. property for 21 years; at 5 per cent, on Government valuation. . There was a new development in the transaction when, on March 19, 1912, Barron applied.to have the.confirmation sealed. Tho \applicatiori was ■ opposed !on the ground that the'arrangement between ■Wirihana 'Hunia and Barron had not expired, and that, if the confirmation were sealed, Wirihana Hunia would not have an opportunity' of' carrying out his part of such arrangement.- It was further pointed, out'that, he was concluding an agreement'with the plaintiff (Hannnn) ;to.' soil -at .£990, subject, to :the:least 1 to be granted 1 in accordance with the arrangement with Barron, and that if necessary the sum of .£BSO would be handed to .the board to \ be paid to Barron. The board (so 'it was set out in the statementof claim) thereupon refused to s-eal the confirmation. Later the agreement between Wirihana Hunia and Hannnn was completed.' The transfer came'before the board for confirmation on April 24. 1912, but the board-refused the application on the ground that the transfer to Barron had already been confirmed. ' Hannan:now alleged that, in considering his 'application for confirmation and in refusing it, the defendant board exceeded its. powers and the grounds upon which'the board,took upon itself to refuse .the'.application, are not good or ten.'ablc.'. It was .further' alleged that the board has not properly considered. the implication and has refused 'so to do. The refusal to confirm the transfer would render it impossible for Wirihana Hunia .to'takp advantage.of the contract to repurchase and he would thereby .lose tho sum of JJUfI less the dmount of Barron's costs ,£BG.v For these reasons' .Hannnn asked the Court to issue n writ of mandamus directed to tlie-Ikaron District Maori Land Board' commanding the board to hear the .application and to endorso a certificate of confirmation on the transfer to Hannan. , By way of defence,' the Ikaroa' District Maori. Land Board 1 said that the land mentioned in the transfer from Wirihana Hunia to-Hannnn wasfat tho time of the execution sf the transfer and still is, Native" land .oii-ned for a. legal estate, in fee simple by more than ten owners as tenants in .common, and therefore inalienable save'in manner provided bx Section 209 <of the Nativo Land Act, 1909; the transfer was not executed with tho precedent 1 consent of the board and was .therefore void and illegal and incapable of confirmation; the application for confirmation, was heard and refused on the ground.that a-prior- transfer of the same land had already .been confirmed; 'the board/had.no power to confirm the,transfer.to Hannan because the latter had not conformed to the regulations in respect of application for confirmation- and .because he (Hannan) did not produce to the board a declaration of. qualification. '■ , - : . ■ There were also, further grounds'of defence, the board.denying many of the allegations in' the statement of claim, ' . .Affidavits were filed by Lindsay Banks Barron, who. took up soroo of the grounds relied on- by ithe Xnnd Board, and who contended, that-there could be no question of priority as tho transfer'in his favour wos confirmed and the confirmation sealed before /Hannnn's npnlication came KP i n' e "° n ™'- fte further contended that the question of the interest of the Native owner, could only be decided b" the board, whose decision :in,,tho matter must be final. v ■

Legal;argument extended into the afternoon, _his Honour wsnrvirist decision. Another case'in which the same parties, are concerned, will nrobably be governed by the. decision, in this one.