NATIVE APPELLATE OURCT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2051, 11 April 1907, Page 2

NATIVE APPELLATE OURCT.

GISBORNE SITTINGS.

The sitting of the Native Appellate Court at present being held ill "Gisborne was continued at the Native Land Court yesterday morning before Chief Judge Palmer and Judges Rawson and Jones. INVESTIGATION OF TITLE. Tveita Aloea-u and others appealed against a decision of the Tai-Raw-liiti Maori Land Council regarding the title to the Pekamaroko block. Counsel for appellants said that tho present appearance was his fourth on the case before different judicial bodies. The matter was very difficult to deal with, and he

did not expect that it would be satisfactorily concluded. That Court would, lie thought, not ho able to go into the merits of the case as well as a Native Land Court could. The committee had gone outside its jurisdiction in dealing with the matter. They ha dgono to outlandish places and got information in a secret manner, and there was no opportunity of cross-examining the people ir Court regarding this information. When the committee’s report was presented to Colonel Porter he ashed all the parties to agree to the committee’s report, but he (the speaker) objected. He thought Col. Porter should have gone into the merits of the case. Colonel Porter said at the time that he knew that if tlie merits of the case were gone into, there would he an appeal against it. He would therefore make an application that the case he referred hack to the Native Land Court, which could go into the merits of the ease according to Maori custom. Did not know that the committee was dealing with the matter until he saw the decision The report said the decision was given as a result of evidence given by certain witnesses. The proceedings were not in the regular form. Two or more members of the committee went to different places and collected evidence, but the committee did not meet together in tin committee-room. He understood the committee were just making preliminary enquiries. He went round privately to the witnesses, and tlieii answers supported his case.

The Chairman of the committee' was here called, and examined. He said the whole committee sat in tilt meeting house at Tc Arai, and called for the claimants and counter claimants. The whole of the people interested already knew the day set apart for the hearing . of the case and they all atended. The mode of procedure in going about outside tc get information was agreed to by all parties including the appellants' counsel. Why had not witnesses been called by appellants at that hearing to support their case? 11 was news to him that appellant’s counsel was not present at the meeting of the committee—he knew very well he would have to bring witnesses to support his case. At the fust, meeting it was decided t<-> go round and get information and act on it, and when this information was received it was written and was published to a full meeting of the committee and the parties interested, appellants’ counsel being among the number. After the reading of the evidence the report was drawn up. Appellants’ counsel objected at the time the decision was given in pretty well the same terms as the appeal to that Court. Appellants’ counsel said he did not hear the evidence read out —he only heard the decision. He claimed the whole of the land. lie had won : t in 1902, but was deprived of it in 1905. He claimed the land by ancestral right. The appellant (his wife) and her aunts were the only surviving heirs. Another claim to the land was constant occupiers—burning fires. All the claims had been brought before the block committee. They had been brought before the marae committee in 1902. The matter was taken in hand by the marae committee as it was feared there would be bloodshed if some-

thing was not done. The dispute had been going on for a very long time. The block committee had thrown out his claim entirely. He and his aunts had received a very small portion of the land. The ancestors claimed wore great-grand-parents of the present appellant. Cannibalism was in fashion at the time. The land was not acquired by conquest by the ancestors. He could not say how it was acquired, but their people had occupied the land ever since. The other side had succeeded on another ancestor (Te Atua Kauru) who was said to he the father of To Uhi and Tauhokolioko, the ancestors relied on by appellant. In 1905 it was stated that Te Atua was the. grandfather of the other two. The same genealogist said in 1902 that they were all brothers. On behalf of respondents it was contended that the decision of the block committee was given on the grounds of ancestral right and not on the evidence gathered outside. It was at the suggestion of appel-

lant’s counsel that that evidence was gathered. The committee, which was composed of people belonging to tho locality, went cautiously into the matter. They knew all the facts of the case. The evidence taken by the committee showed that the descendants of Te Atua had claims to the land. Practically all the land affected was cultivated in grass and potatoes. There were no houses on it. Had heard that appellants’ people had occupied the land continuously. Appellants’ counsel said he had never suggested that the committee should get in formation by secret means. The genealogy submitted in 1905 had been juggled with. He quoted tho 1902 genealogy which was different to the 1905 one. Ho admitted that the same people were

brought in by both genealogies. He only went hack to To Uhi who was a son of To Atua. Te Uhi and Tauhokolioko (sons of Tc Atua) occupied the land at the same time. It was on the occupation of these people that the appellant relied. On resuming after lunch the Chief Judge said it had been contended that this was a case in which a proper decision could not be gven by the Land Board or tho Block Committee because of certain irregularities. There were other similar cases coming up for hearing at AVaiapu, and if a decision were given in this case the Court would have to give decision in all the other cases without hearing argument. It would not be fair to decide the matter without hearing all the argument in the eases., The whole of the cases would he considered together by the Court, and judgment given in this case when all tho cases had been heard.

WHATAROA BLOCK. An application was made that Toia’s appeal regarding Wliataroa and Ohiwa blocks should be heard at Wairoa. The land was situated at Wairoa and most of the interested people lived in the locality. Only the appellants wore present. For the appellant it was contended that the respondents would suffer no injury through not being represented. The respondents would not have to spend much time in Gisborne if they appeared here. He would apply that the persons making the application should be responsible for the expense in changing the venue.

The Chief Judge said it cost £159 a month to run the Court. This seemed too much to pay to enable Teia’s people to hear tho proceedings, and that was all the advantage Wairoa had over Gisborne. The complaint at present was that the Court travelled about to too many small settlements —if the native litigants were gathered in large centres tho Court could do its work far more quickly. It struck him that some of the appeals wore unjust—it seemed that counsel asked for adjournments to keep the cases from being hoard.

AA’hen the case was mentioned later the representative of the appellant said the case was similar to that of Rewi AA’aliapango. The representative of the re- . spondents said ho was not prepared to -go on with the case. It was decided to adjourn the case until the following day to enable the respondent to put in an appearance. Rewi Wahapango appealed in respect of certain land in the block. It was sought to he decided whether all the children of a woman who had had an interest in the land should he put in in her place or only one of them. The appellant merely wished that the land be equally divided among the five’ children. The Chief Judge said there was a general appeal about the whole block; but if the decision was upheld the Court would do as desired. A BIT OF A BREEZE.

The appeal of Ihipera Tamihana and others regarding Tutaekuri 1 was mentioned, and an application was made that the case be heard at Wairoa. The representatives of both parties became very heated, one side contending that the case had been withdrawn and the other that it was intended to proceed with it. A large amount of squabbling took place amongst the representatives of the parties and they had several times to be warned by the Bench. It was stated that an application had been sent in to have the case struck out, but had been returned to appellant for more signatures.. Finally the case, was left in abeyance until something more is heard about the application* to strike the case out.

The Court resumes sitting to-day at 10.30 a.m.