SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2198, 10 July 1914, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

MAORI FISHING RIGHTS. .'.. Native fishing rights formed tbo, subject: of argument' in\an appeal, from a Magistrate's Court decision,'heard before a Full Bench of the Supreme Court yesterday.. '.The Chief. Justice (Sir Robert Stout) presided, and sitting with him wcro Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Cooper. The appellant wasWaipapakura, a Native woman, of Waitara,. and the respondent was John Haniiitoh Hempton, Collector of Customs,. New Plymouth.. : ■■-. ■ Mr, D. Hutehen, of Neyf Plymouth, appeared for tlie appellant,' while the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond, K.C.), with Mr. C. H. Weston, of New: Plymouth, appeared for the respondent. . ■ . . - ;.-■ ■ In the original action, heard in the Magistrate's Court at Waitara.in October last, Waipapakura claimed £10 from Hempton as damages for 'the wrongful removal of three whitebaitfishing nets at Waitara on or about August 22, 1913. At the hearing; it was admitted that the nets had been removed, and Hempton, wlio is a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act,'l9oß, sought to justify the removal of. the not on the ground that they had been used in breach'of the regulations made under'the-Act, and published in the ; Now Zealand. Gazette.- Waipapakura admitted .that, the nets were being used when seized, but" claimed that,she was using them in the exercise of a Maori fishing-right, and that such Maori fishing right was, and. is saved from the operations of the Fisheries Act,'l9oß, and the regulations made thereunder by Section 77 (2)-of that Act. .In .a! reserved judgment (delivered.on.November 26, 1913), the Magistrate- nonsuited, Waipapakura', on the, ground that the existence, of Maori- /fishingrights could only, be ascertained or proved by a judgment or order, of the Native Land Court. , >. ;• ■ ./. From this decision, Waipapakura appealed on. the ground that it was erroneous in law. ~-:.. . '■.-.'■ ,"-.'.- After hearing argument, the Court reserved decision. , . • .-.'.',.■'. a Motor-car accident. ; ' motion for'judgment. A motion for judgment of Michael Sweeney v. ; Sidney. Kirkcaldie and Elsie Kirkcaldie was., argued before' Mr. Justice' Hoskiiig in the .'Supremo. Court iyesterday.; i , .' The claim, which was first before >the Court in May last," iiro'so out of an accident on Karon Road on- Sunday,, February 1, when Sweeney was knocked down by a .motor-car, which the defendant (Elsie'Kirkcaldie) was driving.- He received certain^' injuries to his face and body, and it was alleged that after-effects ! had- also set in, Sweeney being an old man. In respect of these injuries, Sweeney claimed £50! damages.-. The hearing was before a jury of twelve, and, by a- ma- , jority verdict, the issue's submitted were ansVyered in the following terms: — Did the 1 defendant, Mrs. Kirkcaldie, throughout,. manage the motor-car with proper skill and care?— No. ■ ' : Could; she, by the exercise'of proper skill' and' care, have averted the acci- ; ■ ;' "'■ : '..;"■ • - '■■■ ■ ■■-'.■■". Could the plaintiff,' by -the exercise of such care as ho ought to have .exercised in the circumstances, have avoided'Hlie; accident? —No. 7 .;'-'' " What damages (if any)'is the plain- , tiff entitled to receive?—£lso; ■ ~ ' / Whoii the verdict was announced;!, counsel for■ the.,defe I nce' , -gave'iiot'ico,,;tdj move: for' judgment for. .the defendant,' or; in tho alternative, for.a liew. .trial;. It was this motion 'which was argued before his Honour yesterday. . >■ ' ■:■ Mr. C.-;l>. Skerrett,,K.C,,;with;,Mr.' E. appeared in support of the motion, while Mi\ A. Gray, K.C., with Mr., W. -Perry, appeared for the plaintiff (Sweeney).: - : •., '' ■'• It .was. agreed-, by/ pbunsel on .both sides that it was desirable' that His Honour should view the locality of the accident,, and His honour undertook/to follow.this course before arriving at/his decision,- which will be given at a later date. ■ .- ; '■'■ '' .'. '. : '.;:; : ;.. .-■•-.