THE TAHORA APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 245, 24 October 1901, Page 1

THE TAHORA APPEAL.

(Special to Times.)

Wellington, last night. The Appeal Court (the Chief Justice and Judges Deuuiston and Conolly) was occupied this morning in the hearing of the ease of the Hon. Jas. Carroll, Wi Pere and Pcka Kerekere, appellants, and the Bank of New Zealand, who are respondents in that they' hold a caveat over a section of the Gisborne block known as Takora, which comes under the Land Transfer Act, of 1886. The appeal is from the decision of Judge Bat-ham, of the Gisborne Native Lands Validation of Titles Cour?, who held that the Court had no power to order the removal of or deal with the caveat. The application of the appellants for removal of the caveat was based on an agreement with the Native owner that the land should bo assigned to to the appellants as trustees that they might raise .£I6OO to meet a survey lien on the land, and afterwards manage it. The Validation Court did not enter into the merits of the grounds on which the Bank had lodged the caveat, but denied its jurisdiction, on the ground that the Supreme Court alone had jurisdiction to deal with caveats under the Land Transfer Act, of 1885, and that the Validation Court’s jurisdiction ceased with the validation of the title. The trustees uow appeal on the ground that the jurisdiction of the Court over any lands or estates, concerning which it has made a decreo that has been confirmed by Parliament reversed or altered on appeal continues until the whole objects and purposes of the decree have been performed ; secondly, that the Validation Court and its judges have as full power as Judges of the Supreme Court to make any order in connection with the laud while it is within the jurisdiction of the Court, including orders for the removal of caveats.

Messrs Rees and J. P. Campbell appeared fur appellants; and Mr 801 l and Dr-Findlay for respondent. The difficulty of counsel was that there was no opposition to the principle that the Court had jurisdiction-, the question between the parties being one of degree as to how far the Court’s jurisdiction and administration should go. Mr Rees argued that the Court had power to make orders for the management and control of estates in rcspoct of which its decrees are in force.

Mr Bell contended that this might be true in a limited sense, but not in a general sense. The Validation Court, he said, first find whether the bank charge is valid, and then decide whether the caveat should be removed or not. As the Bank held security over three other blocks, and the value of property had increased in the district, the question of Tahora’s security had to a large extent become a matter of indifference to the Bank. The Bank’s securities had now advanced to a position of soundness and safety. Replying, Mr Itees quoted one case in which the Privy Council had decided that where a new remedy was given by an Act it could only be enforced under that Act. He also quoted another English case from the Chancery division, in which it was decided that where increased jurisdiction was given to a Court it must be held that everything necessary to enforce that jurisdiction must be taken to be given also. Argument was concluded at 5 o’clock.

The Court said it would take time to consider its decision.