APPEAL COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VIII, Issue 489, 30 July 1902, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

(By Telegraph—Press Association.) Wellington, last night. Tho caso of Toaro Ranginui and others v. tho Assots Company was bogun in tho Appeal Court to-day. In this case the titlo of tho company to tho block Rangitira No. 2 is attacked. Tho block contains 4670 acros, valued at £4 an aero. Tho momorial of ownorship was issued in 1875, Kinross and Graham, of Gisborne, becoming lessees. They afterwards purchased shares from a number of natives, and their rights ultimately became vested in the company. Plaintiffs now allege that tho provisional rogistor was improperly opened and void, that the transfers from tho natives wore nevor approved by tho Native Land Court, and properly coroplotod, that tho company could not obtain a titlo by tho rnothod of registration omployed, and that tho company’s title on those grounds should be cancelled.

66 15 66 0

THE ASSETS COMPANY’S CASES. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) Wellington, last night. Tho hearing of tho eases Toira Ranginui and others v. tho Assets Company, and Honi Tipuna v. tho Assets Company, was commenced in tho Court of Appeal this morning, beforo Judges Williams, Denniston, and Edwards, Messrs W. L. Rees and J. P. Campbell appearing for tho plaintiffs, and Messrs Bell, DcLautour, and Richmond for tho defondant Company. •TUeso aro actions in which tho title of the Company to tho block known as Rangatira No. 2is attacked. This block contains 2670 acres, tho prosont valuo boing put at about 4)4 por aero. Tho momorial of ownorship for tho block including Rangatira No. 2 was issued by tho Native Land Court in 1875, and tho lcaso of tho samo was grantod by the Natives, which shortly afterwards became vestod in Kinross and Graham, of Gisborne. The latter purchased shares from a numbor of Nativo ownors and lessors as from 1878 onwards, obtaining transfers from those selling their rights both as lessees and as purchasers. Tho shares becamo vested in tho defendant Company. In 1886, a partition of tho wholo block was made by tho Nativo Land Court, and one order for a Crown grant was made in favor of thoso Nativos who had purported to sell their shares, a soparato ordor being made in favor of thoso who had not sold. The transfers to Kinross and Graham wero produced to tho Court, and tho order for Crown grant was made to agree with them, but no ordor in freehold tonuro was applied for or ■ made. In 1895 an order for a Crown grant in favor of tho natives who had purported to sell was forwarded by tho Registrar of tho Native Land Court to the District Land Registrar at Napier. At tho instance of tho defendant company, tho Land Registrar opened a provisional register, making an order for a Crown grant in favor of tho natives the root of title. The various transfers from natives were dated 1878, and subsequently were then produced by the defendant company, and wero registered on a provisional register by the District Land Registrar, and finally a certificate of titlo was issued in favor of tho defendant company. Tho plaintiffs allego that tho provisional register was improperly opened and void ; that tho transfers from tho natives never having been approved by the Native Land Court and completed in accordauco with tho provisions of tho Nativo Land Act, 1873, woro wholly void ; that tho defendant company could obtain no title by obtaining their registration in the mannor mentioned, and they claim that certificate of title in favor of the company ought therefore to bo called in and cancelled. Mr Rees, on bohalf of the plaintiff’s, doalt with tho facts, and ooutondod that tho wholo of tho transactions on which tho titlo of tho company were based and the issuo to tho company certificate under the Laud Transfor Act, were wholly void, and of no effect.

Mr Bell, addressing tho Court on behalf of tho defendants, contended on the construction of tho Native Land Court Acts of 1873-1888, and 189-1. The transfers to tho company having been previously certified to tho Commissioner became entitled under sections 06, 37, and 73 of the Nativo Land Court Act, 1894, to rogistor them under tho Land Trausfer Act. At all ovents, ho submittod this was a very difficult question of the law, and impossible to say that it was fraud on tho part of tho company to register its transform as it had done ; that being so Counsel submittod that tho company was ontitlod to stand upon its land transfor titlo. Argumont will bo resumed to-morrow morning.