LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2527, 30 July 1915, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

NATIVE LAND CASES

In the Supreme Court yesterday judgment was delivered in tile matter of Hera Wharawhara and the Judges of the Native Land Court and Native Appellate Court, a case heard on July 15, before a Full Bench, which comprised, their Honours the Chief Justice iSir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and l Mr. Justice Chapman. There were two motions for writ of certiorari which had been heard together by the Court. The first asked for a rule nisi, calling upon the Native Land Court, Aotea district, and those interested in a certain determination of the Court in the matter of the succession to the real estate of Harawua Pikirangi (deceased) to sho,w cause why the proceedings therein, togother with the record of the determination therein, should not be transferred to the Full Court. The other motion was for a similar rule nisi so far as the Native Appellate Court was concerned. The Native Land Court made six succession orders dealing with the lands in question, and these orders were in dne form, duly authentithe Court. It was these orders that it was desiredl to quash. The Native Appellate Court dealt with only two of t'heso orders, and dismissed the appeals. The Full Bench decided that it had 110 jurisdiction to grant either motion, and that they must both be dismissed, with £7 7s. costs to th-a widow arid administrator and £7 7s. costs to the Judges. Before Mr. Justice Chapman alone a case stated for the opinion of the Court by the Ikaroa Maori Land Board respecting the agreement to purchase the reversion of two parcels of land at IJimitangi was considered. The Court, ivas .asked to .confirm the transfers from ITeatua Benata to E. Chapman and I'. E. Baldwin respectively. The objectors wero Native owners who were tenants in fee simple. The land was leased in 1894 for twenty-one years by Native owners, and the objectors claimed as assignees of the lease. The fctatus of the objectors was challenged. His Honour decided that there remained nothing calling for more than a formal answer to the case as presented to him. . The answer to the only question calling for an answer was, that the 1 objectors are entitled to 'the benefits conferred by Section 93 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1913.