NATIVE LAND CASE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1484, 19 June 1905, Page 4

NATIVE LAND CASE.

JUDGE STATES THEBE WAS FBAUD. (Per Press Association.) Auckland, Saturday. Judgment was given by Judge Edwards to-day iu tho action of Margaret Emma Hiltou Beale to gain possession of about 3500 acres of native land called Waiohau block, situated 20 miles from Tarawcra, from a- number of 3.50 original native owners who wore still in possession and residing on the lend. Plaintiff’s statement of claim alleged that in 1889 a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Aot 1885 in respect of the land in question was issued to Margaret Burt, but the land became vested in Joseph Simmonds and others by transfer under powers contained in mortgage ; that by another transfer, dated May 17th, the land was transferred to plaintiff and duly registered, and that plaintiffs had unlawfully entered upou and occupied the land. The statement of defence of the Nativo defendants alleged that they had a memorial of ownership over the land, dated 1878, that a certificate of title to Margaret Burt was issued without legal authority and was void, and that subsequent dealings with tho land were also void. During the trial it was alleged that the Natives petitioned for a rehearing of partition proceedings : that the Chief Judge of tho Native Land Court, without inquiry except from the Judge of the Native Land Court who had presided at tho proceedings, and without bearing applicant, marked one of such applications as dismissed, and did not deal with the other, and that when orders for partition were made tho only plan before tho Court was the plan of the whole block, with a pencil lino indicating the proposed subdivision. These - matters were not pleaded, but as no objection was made to their proof, and the matter had been fully debated, he would allow an amendment of the statement of defence if it. would benefit the native defendants. The facts alleged by the native defendants had in the main been established by evidence. It had certainly been established, His

Honor continued, that orders made by the Native Land Court were procured by the fraud of Burt. Burt was calied at trial as a witness for plaintiff, and his own evidence exclusively established fraud. It is much to be regretted that the Chief Judge of the Native Land Court did not deal regularly with applications for rehearing of proceedings upon petition. If he had done so, and had made a patient investigation of the matter the wrong which the Native defentants have undoubtedly suffered must have been established and rectified, as it should have been by the Native Land Court at the time. His Honor said that the judgment of the Court of Appeal bad expressly decided under similar circumstances that orders of the Native Land Court were made without jurisdiction and might have been quashed by certiorari. Plaintiff must therefore rely on the protection of the Land Transfer Act. It had not been proved that plaintiff had notice of fraud or of any irregularities, but only that the Natives were still in possession, and she was therefore protected under the Land Transfer Act, 1885. The title of plaintiff was made under a bona fide purchase for a valuable consideration, and she thus obtained an indefeasible title, even though the vendor had obtained his title issued without authority of the law* Plaintiff must therefore have a judgment for possession of the land with costs. ** I regret,” His Honor added, 11 the hardships to defendants. That they have suffered a grievous \vrong is in my opinion plain. It is doubly hard that fchiß wrong should have resulted from a miscarriage j

which certainly ought to have been avoided in 'the very Court which was specially charged with the duty of protecting them in such matters. Plaintiff is of course blameless in the matter.