Native Land Litigation.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 469, 10 July 1902, Page 2

Native Land Litigation.

WELCOME DECISION. [By Tolcgraph—l’ross Association.] Napier, last night. The Appeal Court gavo judgmont this morning in tho Hawko’s Bay Native land casos. Tho Court was unanimously of tho opinion that thoro was nothing to show that tho Native Land Court had not bona fide ascertained the names of tho natives stated in tho certificate to bo owners of tho land, according to native custom, and it was unanimously deciied that the Appeal Court was bound by tho certificates issuod by tho Native Land Court. These certificates wero conclusive as to ownership, and the Court entered judgment for defendants m each caso, with costs j£3oo, and disbursements. Tho Solicitor-General was allowed 75gs and disbursmonts in each case.

OPINION OF JUDGES. FOUNDATIONLESS CASES. [liY TELEGRAPH. PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, last night. Later.— In tho Hawke’s Bay native land cases at tho Appeal Court Mr Baldwin concluded his address for plaintiffs this morning. The Court gavo judgment for defendants in each case, without calling on Counsel for defendants. Mr Justice Williams held that, assuming the Court could inquire in the present proceedings whether the Native Land Court had properly exercised its jurisdiction, and also whether the orders made had been obtained by fraud or collusion, and assuming also that tho plaintiff's had not been guilty of laches and were net barred by the statute of limitations, still the position was that plaintiffs wero asking to have transactions in questions upset after a lapse of thirty-five years. The plaintiff must in every such case make out his caso by sufficient evidence. There was a presumption always in regard to the acts of a Court that whatever had been done bad been properly done, and plaintiff's must adduce evidence to rebut this presumption. In a case of this kind, and after the lapse of such a time the Court should require not only proof, but evidence of such an overwhelming character as to make it absolutely certain that the contentiens of plaintiffs wero correct. In the present cases the Court had no such evidence before it. Reviewing the evidence in each of tho cases His Honor held that in none of them was there any reason whatever for saying that the Native Land Court had not properly exercised its jurisdiction in ascertaining in Duff’s and Brown’s cases as best it could who were the persons entitled to the land under Section 17 of the Native Land Act, 1867,

and in Shrimpton’s case, which was somewhat earlier, making orders in favor of certain persons under Section 2U of the Native Land Act, 1865, upon evidence that was consented to by all concerned. As regards the allegations that orders and oofUfioatßs had been obtained by fraud, His Honor pointed out that nd if fraud had been made in the statement of :laim—only suggestions of fraud, which j t had been possible to make. Upon the argument of the case it had been suggestion that the Natives who had conducted the cases before the Native Land Court I had misrepresented matters to the Natives interested, and misrepresented the wishes and intentions of the latter to the Court, The Native conductors charged in this way had Leen loDg since dead, and so were unable to speak for themselves, Reading the evidence His Honor was unable to say it showed even a suspicion I of fraud on their part. Taking the evidence as a whole, His Honor was of opinion that no more foundationless cases had ever come before a Court of Justice. Mr Justice Edwards stated his opinion, in the first place, that upon the authorities it was clear the orders and certificates of the Native Land Court must be treated as conclusive. Assuming, however, that the Court- could enquire whether they had bean properly made His Honor concurred with Mr Justice Williams that the evidence which had been put forward in support of the allegations that the jurisdiction of the Native Land Court had not been properly exercised, or that its orders

and certificates had been obtained by fraud on the part of tho Natives, was wholly insufficient. Mr Justice Cooper concurred in tho views of the other members of the Court and quoted authorities to show that where it is sought to set aside a judgment on the ground of fraud, the evidence must be clear and conclusive. In ti e present eases, tho allegation was based only on the most shadowy suggestions. Judgment was given for defendants in each case, with costs, £'3oo, and disbursements in each case. Costs were also given to the Solicitor General, £75, and disbursements in each ease.