AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 485, 26 July 1902, Page 2

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

ARE MAORIS SUPERIOR TO OTHER BRITISH SUBJECTS’.' RESENT BEING DEALT WITH LIKE PAKEHAS. (Per Press Association). Wellington, last night.

To-day the Chief Justice anrl .Justices Conoliy and Cooper took up tho hearing of some important cases under the Land for Settlement Act, affecting tho right of tho Crown to acquire certain nativo lantH known as Ngawakaapuko. Notice was given by tho Minister of Lands in April last to take tho land in question compulsorily. As a result proceedings wore taken in the Compensation Land Court- by tho owners, on the ground that the Crown had no authority to compulsorily take land which had been held as tribal land by the Ngatikav/cra tribe before partition amongst the native owners. The land is owned by Niniwa Horemai, of Mavtinborough, and is leased to J. Riddiford, and sub leased to O. J. Tullev and others. Niniwa claimed £21,000 compensation, and the right to select 2000 acres with tho homestead. This claim led up to the President o£ the Compensation Court stating o, special ease for the Supreme Court, bringing in t-ho following claimants as against the respondent (the Ministor): Niniwa Horemai, Emily Grace (natural guardian of an infant child of one of the certificated Natives), Mahupukukaka, IPoriana Natanahira, Henry S. Izard, and George McFarlano. Tho special ease submitted tho following questions to tho Supreme Court: Are the blocks affected private lands within the meaning given to these words in Section 2 of the Land for Settlement Consolidation Act, 1901 ? If they are private land, is tho Act within tho powers of the Legislature so Jar as it purports to authorise the compulsory acquisition by the Minister of Lauds of estates of aboriginal natives of New Zealand held by the tribal owners of such lands, so long as it is the desire of the owners to retain the lands ? Counsel for plaintiffs, in denying the existence of power to compulsorily acquire the land, based his case chiefly on the treaty of Waitaugi, and on its provision that the natives should be preserved in possession of their lands. Tho Act, if it applied to the lands of tribal owners, was repugnant to the Constitution Act. Tho Chiof Justice said that tho treaty could bo incorporated in a statute, but could not as a treaty override a statute, and was not binding on Parliament. Claimants appeared to say that titled natives had a greater right than British subjects. Counsel for tho Crown argued that if the contention put forward were to apply to all land acquired through native title it would be exempt from the operations of the Land Settlement Act. The Court reserved judgment.