LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1886, 22 October 1913, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

i . COURT OF APPEAL. THE LAND OP THE MAORIS. n i- HISTORY OF DEAL, g : a 1 DAMAGES CLAIMED FROM g CROWN. A question of law involving an important point as to whether a contract of sale of Native land to a European was binding until confirmed by the Native Land Purchase Board was argued at some length before the Appeal Court yesterday, a Native having sold his land to the Crown after receiving £1000 as part purchase of tho same land from a settler's wife. His Honour Sir Joshua Williams presided, and associated with him were Their Honours Mr. Justice Cooper and Mr. Justice Edwards. The plaintiff ns Anna Karoy Wilson, i wife of_ John Thomas Wilson, settlor, Dannevirke, and tho defendants were William Herbert Herrios, Native Minister: Thomas William Fisher, Underi Secretary of tho Native Department: '• John Strauchon, Under-Secretary for s Crown Lands; and Frederick Wm. e Flannagan, Valuer-General, constituting the Native Land Purchase Board under h the Native Land Act, 1909; Alexander ; - Lawrence Herdmani, tiio Attonieys General; Frederick Lewis Asninall, I- District Land Registrar for the district e of Hawke's Bay; William Pitt, Civil o Servant, Wellington, Secretary of the y Native Land Purchase Board: and e Hori Haira, male aboriginal Native, of e Kaitoki, Hawke's Bay. t Sir John Findlay, it.C., with him Mr. o T. H. G. Llojd, represented plaintiff, [- and the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.), with him Mr, V. R. S. e Meredith, appeared for the.defendants. .- except the last-named Native, Hori Haira. 0 The Crown's Case. " The Solicitor-General, openinc on bp--11 half of the defendants, said that this • was a question of law to bo argued be-' - fore trial. The action was one for damages, first for breach of contract as - against Hori Haira. and second for in--1 dticing that breach of contract as against certain of tho defendants, tho v members of the Native Land Purchase :, Board, and their secretary. Damages i- were also claimed against the Crown, p but that was incompetent. The last--0 named defendant (Hori Haira) was i. owner of certain Native land, and on t October 4, 1912. he executed a. transfer to plaintiff of his 191 acres in Tahoraite No. 2 Block, application being made for > confirmation and £1000 being paid by , way of anticipation. Pending that conj firmation the Nativa on March 14 Eold g the same land to the Crown, who was s now the legal owner, so that the confirmation of tho plaintiff's transfer was impossible. Tho purchase by the Crown was affected through tho agency of the Native Land Purchase Board under tho • Native Land Act, 1909, and its mem- i hers we're sued in tlifir. private capacity for inducing breach of contract, it being a alleged that their act was done with y a_ fitll knowledge of the plaintiff's nre- ® vioiis contract. and that it amounted to ti malicious or wilfnl'inducement of breach of contract. Such knowledge was 5" denied. Tho Native had tho money II which had been paid by plaintiff, and s was prepared to hand it over. Tho 1 Solicitor-General then quoted legal argument to show that no alienation of - Native land by a Native had any effect :1 until it was confirmed, and that neither . partv was bound by it, and so could 0 not be made the subject- of any procoede ings excent for action for confirmation, h He added that it was often tho practico to. conciliate the vendor by a part • j payment before the confirmation, hut 3 that was the risk of tho purchaser, and _ the purchase money was usually paid on a the completion of the contract before _ tho board. There was now nending boy foro tho Ikaroa District Maori Land f Board an application for confirmation of the transfer to plaintiff, and the • s - plaintiff's claim was that plaintiff would have been entitled to have'the transfer confirmed but for the wrongful action of tho defendant Hori Haira in execut- ' ing the transfer to the Crown. Plaintiff ' claimed that Hori Haira pay £500 r as damages for breach of contract, that J the other defendants and the Crown J pay £500 as damages, that Hori Haira 1 repay to plaintiff tk>_ whole of the 1 money advanced by her in part payment e of tho purchase money, and the' costs of the action. Tho Solicitor-General, in conclusion, contended that it would - be an extraordinary thing if tho Grown 1 was to be debarred from purchasing 0 land when its transfer was not con- '- firmed, whilst any other purchaser was . not so debarred. ri e The Other Side. - Sir John Findlay, on behalf of plnin:j tiff, pointed out that before the pass--1 ing of the Native Land Act, 1909, an i agreement to transfer amounted to' a '1 valid contract, and cited several judg--1 ments to show that, the SolicitorGeneral's ' assumption that the Act of r 1909 entirely eradicated the earlier law ' was not sound. A conditional contract i signed by_ a Native was a valid conl tract until confirmation was refused, r It was part of his case that all the re- - quirements of the section had been com- ' plied with when the Crown stepped in.. - Assuming that, and assuming that i plaintiff wjts entitled to confirmation, s would it not bo assumed that the Land - Board would do its duty and grant the - application ? Mr. Justice Cooper: What is to pref .vent you from getting it now? You can't get the registration, of course, 3 because the. land has been transferred l to the Crown. s Sir John Findlay: Wo should be glad l of ail opportunity to apply, but tho view s taken is that the land has been vested l in the Crown. That was » case_ of . considerable importance. In practice, 1 the purchase money was paid before I confirmation, and the Solicitor-General , contended that a Maori could sell his i land conditionally and repeat the trans--1 action as .often as he could get people , to part with their money. If that 5 was so, the purchaser would be left - without remedy. Tho Maoris were pretty well as ablo to look after themselves ) as a European, and that interpretation 1 of the law would enable them to ,act - in a scandalous and dishonest fashion. 1 Any construction of tho law which 3 would prevent that should he adopted, t To attempt to get a Maori to break his r contract was highly improper, and 3 should expose such a person to a claim 3 for damages. Solicitor-Central's Reply. The Solicitor-General, in reply, said that Sir John Findlay had taken up I a more courageous attitude than ho ex- - pectod, and had devoted his argument - to prove an express contract. He was > pursuing in that Court on a document which tho .Court could take no notice ! of, as only the Nativo Land Board could take any notice of such a document. ° His contention was that an unconfirmed ; contract could not be taken any notico n of. If the position was as Sir John s Findlay had put it, the person who e would get the most damages would he. e the one who offered the least for Maori s land. There must bo free trade in land t \xjth no monopoly. Judgment was reserved, and the J Court roso until 10.15 to-day.