COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 460, 2 July 1902, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

By Telegraph—Press Association Wellington, last night. In the Court of Appeal argument was continued in the case of Neera v. the Bishop of Wellingtpn and others, the questions raised being in the nature of demurrers. Mr Gully, on behalf of the Solicitor-General, argued that no Court can inquire into a validatory deed of cession, and that both aeeeptanees by the Crown of the cession and the subsequent issue by it of a grant must be accepted as conclusive ; that the native title had been fully extinguished. Messrs Quick and Harper, for the defendant trustees, emphasised the distinction between tho present and other cases ; that the Crown grant in the present case was issued under the prerogative of the Crown and not under statute, and that the Court cannot therefore inquire into its validity. They also urged under the defence of laches and statute of limitations. Mr Baldwin then commenced his address on behalf of plaintiff, contending that the defence of laches was not open either to the defendant trustees or the Crown.

Later. —Argument for plaintiff was continued this afternoon in tho case of Hohepa Wi Neera v. the Bishop of Wellington and others, in the Court of Appeal. Mr Baldwin, for plaintiff, contended that the Treaty of Waitangi had recognised the ocoupntionary rights which the natives had according to the law of natives in lands possessed by them at the date of annexation of the colony ; that the royal instructions to tho governors of the colony had continued and confirmed these rights, and that no grant of land by a governor in derogation of these rights could be considered as authorised by the Crown or as a grant made by the Crown. He submitted, therefore, that it was open to the plaintiff in the present suit to show that the alleged Crown grant was void from the outset, as it was made without the knowledge or assent of the native owners, and therefore was contrary to the Royal instructions.