NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2052, 12 April 1907, Page 2

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

GISBORNE SITTING.

The sitting of the Native Appellate Court at present being held in Gisborne was continued yesterday. The appeal of lliipera Tainihana md others regarding Tutaekuri 1 was considered in the morning. The respondents applied to have the case adjourned to AA’airoa so that the people- interested (outside the parties to the suit) could hear the proceedings. An adjournment was taken to enable Hie parties to confer as to taking the cases in Gisborne. After the conference it was announced that the parties bail decided to have the case beard in Gisborne, and the case was adjourned till the following day to enable the case to he prepared. After the lunch adjournment it was announced that the appeal of Renata Tupara regarding Anaura and other blocks had been struck =»—■—- -

Rawin' Karaha’s appeal regarding Puatai 3 was next taken. The appellant’s counsel said that the ease was probably unique and -lie thought it would be well if a case wore stated by that Court for argument in the Supreme Court. The present Court was quite competent to deal with the matter. The ease bad twice previously been before judicial bodies, and then before Parliament. The trouble bad arisen in. the first place through the people in i\ T o. 3 being transferred to No. 4, and vice versa. When this was done the boundaries were altered anti the ancestral boundaries were not adhered to. A. part of the block had been cut out for a certain liapn and called block 2. The Appellate Court transferred this hapu into No. 3. injustice was done by this action and a petition was presented to Parliament. By changing the boundaries a person in No. 4 was brought into No. 3. The Appellate Court would not allow the No. 3 people to claim this piece of No. 4. The present claim was to have the boundaries fixed on the ancestral basis. The parties had all agreed to the people being shifted back into their old positions. The petition to Parlia--1 ment had been considered, and the committee reported in favor of the petitioners. Both parties to the preson suit were dissatisfied with the previous decisions given. This was proved by the fact that both parties had presented petitions to Parliament in the same terms. It was because Parliament had been slow to move in the. matter that the present proceedings were taken. Tile people of No. 3 had just Cause to complain of the No. 2 people being put in No. 3. The Appellate Court (sitting in 1000) had done wrong in shifting the boundary between blocks 3 and 4 southward. He.asked that that Court take steps to make the alterations demanded. , Respondent's counsel stated that the appellant had always been against the people in No. 2 and 4. At the first investigation the boundary was on a road, hut not the road his friend mentioned. It had been decided that the boundary should be brought, more to the south, and a petition had boon presented to Parliament by bis clients asking that it he brought still further south. The people who had been shifted into No. .3 bad done so under the guidance of Rawiri. If the present position were altered ' a ' great injustice would he done. The peoolo affected had their houses where they were. They were all old people and were all easily led. It could be proved out of Rawiri’s mouth that they were the real owners of the land they occupied. Rawiri explained that one cause of complaint was that the boundary had been laid down by the Court without reference to any of tile pe l pie. The people at present, on Na. 3 bad been in occupation since 1808. Tile people affected were nan relations of liis, and lie had oib-i) given them land. If the boundary recognised by the lower Court were re-instated he would be satisfied. The list of names as agreed to by the lower Court would be acceptable to him. A case should be stated for tile Supreme Court. Judgment was reserved. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.