COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 484, 25 July 1902, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE WAIN GAIiOMIA BLOCK.

(By Tolograph—Press Association.) , Wellington, last night. t Mr floll, in opening tho ease for tho i dofondant company in tho Gisborne laiid ( casos, formally took objection again to tuo i actions proceeding without oither the j wholo of tho nativos claiming an interest i in tho block being joined as parties, or olso ■ tho caso being confined to tho claim of ] ;omo singlo native. Doaling with tho merits of tho case, i counsel submitted that tho company is de j facto possessor of tho title undor tho Land , Transfor Act, and in tho absenco of actual fraud on its part is entitled to retain that titlo. On the evidence ho submitted it wae impossible to suggest frond on tho part of tho Assets Company. An order of freehold tenuro had been issued and placed on tho provisional register under tho Land Transfer Act long beforo tho Assets Company had anything to do with tho matter, and tho company claimed through a series of bona fide transactions which s had been placed on tho provisional register. It was impossible to suggest fraud on tho part of tho solicitors who had ultimately completed tho titlo by obtaining the issuo of a permanent certificate in pursuance) of thoso transactions. Mr 8011, continuing, elaborated his argument on tho provisions of the Land Transfer Act, and tho decision upon the construction of that Art. Later.— Continuing his argument for the defendant company in tho Gisborne Native land cases, Mi Bell contended , that although tho proceedings in tho Native Land Court, including tho. order of freehold tonurc, were wholly without jurisdiction and void, the defendant company havjn" acquired tho land transfer titlo without fraud is protected by the provisions of that Act. This would havo been so, ho submitted, even if Cooper had never been - ... .u» -wivUinnal register. Cooper

placeu ou having, however, been placed on tnc icj«>istor, and a series of transactions having been registered in tho saiuo manner, the termination being a transfer to tho company, counsel contended that the effect of section 43 of the Land Transfer Act is that tho subsequent issue of a certificate conferred an indefensible title on tho company. Counsel also submitted that tho caso is indistinguishable from tho caso of Matai and tho Assets Company, decided in favor of the company in 1887. 1 Tho proceedings in 1884 had given the company notice of a claim by tho Crown, which had boon subsequently settled, but there was no notice that any wrong was boin" done. The issue of tho complete memorial in 1889, with a second order of freehold tenure endorsed, had fully jusii fied tho company in applying for » certificate, and made it quite impossible to charge it with fraud. Tho case will bo continued to-morrow.