Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT

LAND AT CHATHAM ISLANDS

DISPUTED OWNERSHIP

A Ntithe land dispute, in which all "10 parties concerned arc residents of the Chatham Islands, was before Hi« Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday morning, There were two actions relating to practically the same matter and based on a similar set of facts and by agreement _ they ivere heard together. The plaintiffs in the first action were: May Inia, Edmond Inia, Toenga Inia, and Here Tawhsingawliaiiga, Inia, infants by their guardian-ad-litem Inia Tuhata and ? m -I'ukata, farmer, as trustee of the aforesaid infants. The defendants were Agaruako Himiona, Miria Himiona, and iN'gamiia Haini, farmers. In the other action the plaintiffs were Paniora te Arahu and others, while the defendants w-ere Paki Harai and Ngakina Hami, farmers.

Mr. C. B. Mori6Dn, K.C., with <hdm Mr. G. Samuel* appeared for tho plain- ' while Mr. A. \\\ Blair appeared for the defendants.

J n the statement of claim, the plaintufis a-lleged that the defendants (and Himiona Tahuliu (deceased), in or about tho mouth of June, 1905, unlawfully took possession of certain lauds belonging to the plaintiffs and known as "Wharekauri iso. 1 L, Mairangi, No. 2 Chatham Islands. The "block had been partitioned by an order of the Native Land Court, but this order had never been obeyed. As defendants had retained possession of the land and refused to give it up to the plaintiffs, the latter now claimed possession, an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs in their possession, and .£350 as damages for loss of mesne profits from Jum>, J9oa.

Tta defence was a complete denial of the various allegation in tho statement of claim.

At the outset, Mr, Blair raised tho question of jurisdiction and His Honour noted the point. Subsequently Mr. Blair conceded tnat there could be no doubt about his clients in possession and that the question therefore resolved itself into one of damages. Certain witnesses had given evidence before the Registrar, and yesterday other witnesses were called on both sides. His Honour reserved judgment.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150603.2.96

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2478, 3 June 1915, Page 9

Word count
Tapeke kupu
345

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2478, 3 June 1915, Page 9

SUPREME COURT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2478, 3 June 1915, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert