NEW ZEALAND.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1803, 9 July 1906, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND.

(Pm Piom AaiocUtlon.) Auckland, Saturday, At the B.M. Court to day, Mr 0. C. iCottlo, S.M., gave judgment in a caso in which Goorgo Pottor suod Honaro Kaihnu lor tho rocovory of £75, advanced in connection with tho securing of a loaso to block b'J, Onohoro, from a niitivo, togother with interest, or in tho altorimtivo £2OO for broach of contract, lvaiha was to got £l5O i tho loaso was obtained, but though legal restrictions wovo removed tho lease was not secured, so tho Magistrate docidod that tho £ls advanced must bo returned. Costs and the claim for iutorost wore not allowed. In tho courso of his judgment Mr Kettlo said a Gazotto notice was published in February, 11)01, undor soction 55 of tho Native Land Court Act withdrawing restrictions under tho grant and giving tho trustoos tho right to loaso tho land for 20 years with the right of renowal. In Novombor of that year a peculiar soction was inserted in the Nativo Land Claims and Adjustment Act, giving power to loase, on the whole block for 2 L years. How that peculiar section got into that Act did not appear. Tho trustoos had c. right to grant a lease, but nothing appeared to lmvo boen done beyond all sorts of abortive attempts to got the loase signed by tho natives. Notwithstanding the combined eiforts of Kaihau and Mr Sinclair and the “sweetening” process which Potter admitted he adopted, and which ho (Mr Kettlej was afraid was adopted too much, the natives could not be induced to execute tho lease. Attempts to procuro a loase proving abortive w T as eventually abandoned. It had not boen established to his satisfaction that this failure was due to any act of plaintiff. Finally an attompt was made. to procure a leaso of 1000 acros, the original suggestion having been for the whole block. This also proved abortive.

A butcher’s assistant named William Lawry was charged in the Police Court yesterday with having received various sums totalling £SO l*2s 2d on account of his employer, Jabes Marks, and fraudulently omitting to account for them. Chief Detoctive Marsack stated that accused’s duties included the delivery of meat and collection of customers’ weekly accounts. During a period from October Ist to a few days ago he had collected sums every week and failed to account for them. On going through the books his employer found a deficiency of £SO 12s 2d. Accused pleaded guilty and was committed to the Supreme Court for sentence.