NATIVE LANDS.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 468, 9 July 1902, Page 3

NATIVE LANDS.

ATTEMPT TO UPSET TITLES. ’(Per Press Association). Wellington, last night. The oases of Tima Korehi v. Luff, Tokari v. Shriuipton, and Turni Waata v. Brown woro resumod in tho Court of Appeal this morning, Mr Baldwin continuing his argument for tho plaintiffs. Tho Chief Justico did not tako his seat on the resumption of tho cases owing to indisposition, and tho lioaring of the oases is boing continued boforo Judges Williams, Edwards, and Cooper. Having doalt with dofonces of laches, acquiosconee, and tho statuto of limitation, Mr Baldwin stated that his argument would bo first —that tho orders and certificates of tho Nativo Land Court are not conclusive ; secondly, that thoy may bo shown uot to be conclusive in a collateral proceeding; and thirdly, that tho Crown grants purporting to bo issuos upon tho authority of suob invalid ordors and certificates aro of no effect, in the first place becauso tho Governor had

no statutory authority to issue them, and in tho second place because the Crown wan decoived in its grant. Ho submitted that under tho Native Land Act, 1865, an actual investigation of titlo and ascertainment of the roal ordors was a condition precedent to tho issue of tho valid ordors and certificates. Tho evidonco ho submitted would show that in tho prosent cases tho Nativo Land Court Judges had not proceeded upon any ovidenco or had proceeded upon tho moro pretence of ovidenco as to real ownership, and had merely rogistorod (he effect of tho agreement amongst certain of tho natives as to persons whose names should bo inserted in tho ordors and certificates. The Court had, therefore, never really exorcised its jurisdiction, and tho orders and tho certificates wore nullities, and they could bo treated as such in tho present proceedings. Counsel cited a number of authorities, with a view of establishing tho above propositions, and contended that on tho evidonco for tho defendants the orders of the Nativo Land Court must be hold to havo been made in fraud of plaintiffs and tboir predecessors. Mr 801 l raisod tho objection to this that no suggestion of fraud appeared upon tho evidence, and fraud was in no way alleged in tho statements of claim. Defendants had not como proparod to moet a case of fraud.

Mr Baldwin submitted that the natives had in each caso appointed ono of their number as conductor of the case before the Native Land Court, on Behalf of all, with instructions to obtain orders in favor of oortain porsons as boing tho representatives of all; that on tho ovidenco for tho defendants these conductors had in Court stated those persons so agrood on were to bo solo and absolute owners in thoir own right, and tho Court had made orders accordingly. This, he submitted, was fraud on tho othor owners, entitling them to impeach the orders in tho present proceedings. If tho orders and oortifloates wore void, the Crown grant must fall with thorn, as issued without statutory authority. Dealing with tho cases of Messrs Bhrimpton and Brown, in whioh the Land Transfer titles wore afterwards obtained, Mr Baldwin contended that if the Crown grant was void, then tho effeot of sections 10 and 17 of the Land Transfer Act, 1885, was that the District Laud Registrar had no power to bring land under the Land Transfer Aot, and that the certificates of title undor that Act must fall with tho Crown grants. Counsel then addressed himself to tho facts, dealing first with the ovidouco in the case of 'l'imu Kerehi v. Duff. Ho submittod that in tho caso of tho land in question in the action it was incontestable; that before the hearing in tho Native Land,Court a very large number of natives wore interested in it; that the evidonoo now produced for plaintiffs was that those whose names were inserted in Court orders were intended merely as representative of the largo number really interested, and that it was moro reasonable to suppose that tho natives would remember this than that the Judge of the Native Land Court who dealt with tho case should be able to state after thirty-five years what was the Eind of his decision in one out of a r largo number of cases coming before . The minute books of tho Court, he submitted, were not evidence, and, further, be contended that the matter was not put in the minuto books in a manner at all conclusive. Argument for plaintiffs is not yet concluded.