APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 485, 26 July 1902, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

GISBORNE CASE

By Telograph—Press Association. Wellington, last night. Mr 801 l continued the argument for tho Assets Company this morning in tho native land cases in tho Court of Appeal. Ho contended that tho ordor in freehold tenure was good on its face, and it was not essential that tho memorial of ownership should havo boon adjudicated in Court and tho order for memorial made. Counsel also submitted that tho ovidenco showed such imperfections in the records of tho Native Land Court that it was impossible for tho Court to conclude that tho requirements had not been complied with merely becauso entries had not been made upon the minutes or documents could not now bo found upon tho file. .This, ho submitted, was a principle which should bo applied most strongly when tho proceedings and transactions wore attacked after BO°long a lapao of time. Mr Bell further contended that an order in freehold tenuro cannot bo attacked in collateral proceedings, being judgment in rem of a Court of exclusive jurisdiction. Mr Bell further contended that if the result of tho decision in the easo Tamaki v. Baker is that natives can sue in a court of law on a native title and recover possession of tho land claimed by them under such title, then thoy must equally with tho Europeans bo subjoct to tho provisions of the statutes of limitation. Any legal right of action they might have had was therefore barred. Ho submitted, howevor, that tho legal cstato had passed to the Assets Company, and any remedy tho natives might have must therefore be an equitable remedy only. That being so, equitable principles must be applied, and tho natives wore barrod by laches and acquiescence, having stood by for years with the knowledge of tbeir rights, if any, whilst tho Company was in possession of tho land, and oxponding largo sums iu improvements.