NATIVE LAND LITIGATION.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 419, 19 May 1902, Page 3

NATIVE LAND LITIGATION.

THE CASES HEARD IN NAPIER.

By Telegraph—Press Association,

Napier, last night. 1 At the Supreme Court on Saturday, 1 evidence was concluded in tho case of i Turei Waata and others against John ; Hunter Brown and another. Mr McLean applied to have tho case dismissed as against the mortgagees, addressing tho Court and quoting authorities in support of his application. He submitted that it was important that the position of the mortgagees should be decided at once. If the Court did not see its way to grant the application immediately, it would go forth that there was at all evonts some doubt as to whether a mortgago given under tho circumstances of this caso was a valid mortgage. He was satisfied, and felt sure His Honor would also be satisfied, that, under tho Land Trausfer Act, and, on the authorities ho had quoted, he was entitled to ask the Court to strike out the caso so far as the mortgages were concerned. It was possible that tho Court might take the view that the mortgages could not suffer by allowing the issues affecting them to stand over for decision till the other points were decided, but, after careful consideration, he had concluded that it was his absolute duty to make the application at that stage. Mr Baldwin addressed tho Court in reply, also quoting authorities in support of his contention that the mortgagees should not be discharged from the action. He submitted that there was such an amount of doubt in this matter because of tho wording of the Land Transfer Act that it was undoubtedly worthy of the most serious consideration. His point, in - a nutshell, was that the land had never j been alienated. .

His Honor said he would not give his decision on the point at once, but so far it seemed to him that there was no esse against tho mortgagees. No decision will be given until all the cases have been heard. An action to- have the title to the Matapiro block, Hawke’s Bay, declared void was brought by Pihikete Taherei against \V. Shrimpton and others. For tho plaintiffs Mr Baldwin, in opening, said the case presented some features similar to the Wairoa cases, but in othor respectß there were differences. The ground of the plaintiffs’ claim was the same, namely, that certain natives were in rightful possession and occupation of the land in question, and no due process of law had deprived them of their rights. With regard to the Land and Loan Company and the mortgagees, counsel would formally accopt His Honor’s decision on the point raised in the previous case. He behoved the original purchasers of the land were Messrs Shrimpton and Rich, and that it was subsequently divided, Mr Shrimpton taking a portion and the Land and Loan Company becoming interested in the other portion. Mr Shrimpton, like Mr Brown in the last case, had been the person to bring the land under the Land Transfer Act. Evidence would be adduced to show that a large number of natives were in rightful possession and occupation in 1866. The Native Land Court being informed that a large number of hapus were interested directed that the natives should select ten persons for each, and their names were inserted in the title. He (counsel) admitted that he would have some difficulty in this case, as he was not yot aware of anyone he would call who was present at the sitting of the Land Court, and all the witnesses who gave evidence there were dead.

The further hearing of the case was postponed to Monday.