THE TAHORA APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 246, 25 October 1901, Page 3

THE TAHORA APPEAL.

(Special to Times.) Wellington, last night. The appeal from the decision of the Validation Court, relating to the Tahora Block, came on for argumen ather unexpectedly yesterday morning, bei 1 four of the six Judges "constituting the ourt of Appeal. The case did not lasi as as was anticipated. argument beiDg com ‘*d before the Court rose for the day. Tj . crtt ct of the argument of Messrs Rees and iMmpbell, on behalf of the Hon. J. Carroll. Y\ 1 Fere, and Peka Kerekere, appellants, was that the Validation Court Judge took the view that

under the Native Lands Titles Act, 1893, the Judge of the Court had disc aarged its function as soon as the title had been determined, anct that there was no provision in the Act to carry on the administration of any of the native’land estates, or deal with incidental questions such as charges created upon any estate to raise money for developing it. In the present case a caveat had been placed on the land in question by the Bank, of New Zealand in consequence of a charge arising from an arrangement between the Trustees of the block and the Bank, whereby the Bank was promised a charge upon the land to secure a sura of money. Appellants had

sought to have this caveat removed to enable them to deal with the land. The question of removal of that caveat came before the Judge of the Validation Court, and he held that he had no right or jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of the removal of the caveat at all. since in his view the jurisdiction of his Court ceased as soon as the title to the land had been ascertained and determined. This appellants’ counsel now combatted, maintaining that on the proper construction of the Native Lands Titles Act

the Court had a continuing jurisdiction to do all that is necessary to work out any original agreement come to between the natives, and for that purpose had the power of ordering money to be raised, ordering the removal of the caveats, and doing all other things necessary for the carrying on of the administration of the estate.

j The view Mr H. D. Bell and Mr Findlay ! took on behalf of the Bank was that the | Validation Court had jurisdiction to deal with ! the caveat, and so far they agreed with the ! appellants, but the decision of the Court of j Appeal should not be a mere director to the < Validation Court Judge to remove the caveat; j there should be a direction that it was the ! duty of the Validation Court Judge to enquire into and determine whether the charge : claimed by the Bank was one which under | the Validation Act, should be validated so as to support the caveat, and therefore an order should be first a direction to ascertain whether the agreement between the Bank and Trustees was such as if validated by the Validation Court could support the caveat. The Judges reserved their decision, but ; from the discussion that occurred during i the course of the argument, the Chief Justice j expressed the opinion that probably legisla- ! tion would be required to meet matters of j this kind. He appeared to think it would be j better if the Validation Court's jurisdiction ] ceased upon the validation of titles, and that it should not carry on continuous jurisdiction over an estate the title to which had already been ascertained, and if there was any subsequent difficulty legislative provision should be made for it.

If the decision of the Court of Appeal is that there is no power to make these subsidiary orders it is stated that it is considered a number will be upset, because the Court, under another Judge, has already made a number of sucli orders.