NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2053, 13 April 1907, Page 2

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

GISBORNE biTTING

The sitting of the Native Appellate Court was continued u tire Land Court yostordiiy. When the Court met ]_ in g the following judgment i L Rawiri Karaha’s appeal re I nig ivawiii (<Tl,is is ail appeal SmrdEn of the Chief .J* refusing to entertain an PI SSriSlrt Act, to amend alleged errors and omissions m certain proceedings of the Court, appears that the Puutai block v s partitioned by the lower Com t, a , upon appeal from its decision,. the Appellate Court confirmed the P b incut as to part and varied the old to other portions, shifing ceitam dividing lines and readjusting the I!st s of names. The appellants complain that the judgment was unjust to them and ask the Chief Judge to exercise his powers of amendment under the section referred to. > this instance both the question o the dispute boundary and lists ot names wore adjudicated upon by the Appellate Court. This Court thinks that even if the Chief Judge had the power, upon which question we express no opinion, under the circumstances set out he was right in holding that this was not a case for the exercise of the special statutory powers conferred upon him. It is therefore unnecessary for us to go into the merits of the case. The appeal is dismissed. The appeal of Renata Tupara regarding Anaura and other blocks was struck out because of non-payment of deposit. The appeals of Ari Kirimana, MMullooly, and Ereti Amaru regarding the Kopuni block were adjourned sine die so that Parliament could deal with the petition presented regarding the block. „ Argument was heard in the appeal of Teia regarding AVliataroa and Olihva blocks.

For the appellant it was stated that the two buildings at present on the land had been up for twenty years and ten years respectively. Previous to that tliore were no buildings on the land, but there had been cultivation. The appellant was the only surviving descendant of Hiiieau, the ancestor claimed from. There might he others, but appellant did not know of them. Appellant was not very clear about the descendants. It was asked that all those who had left the land lately, even though they had ancestral right to "the land, should be struck out of -the list of names for the block. Appellant did not at present reside on the biock (she left to live with her husband), but her nephew occupied the land on her behalf. It was the children and grand-children who were occupying land on behalf of others who - were objected to. The people objected to had no right to the land. It was contended for respondents that the appellant had no right to the land. She was, no doubt, descended from the ancestor named, but that ancestor was claimed by the whole of the people of the district. Appellant’s fires wore not burning on the land. The person who was occupying the land for her was more •closely related to the respondents than to her. The houses on the land belonged to respondents. Appellant’s brother rested on the land through marriage with one of the respondent’s people. The proceedings in the lower Court had been carried on ill an open manner. On the suggestion of the Court a committee was formed to compile a list of names. This list was approved by the Court. Appellant and others objected to the list, but appellant could give no reason for wishing to eliminate certain parties. The Court mentioned that apjiellaiit was trying to cut out people who liad just claims to tlic land. Appellant’s elder brother would not give her necessary whakapapas because he objected to any appeal in the matter. The block was given back to the Maoris after confiscation, and any native springing from the common ancestor of the district was entitled to a share of it. The respondents had occupied the land for more than the three years stated by appellants —they had occupied it for fifteen years. Appellant was wrong in

claiming a right to the land because of somebody buried there. Appellant's counsel said that if the ease were referred back to the Native Land Court the appellant could conclusively prove that slio was the rightful owner of the land. However that Court decided appellant would have to take further legal steps. If the case were sent back to the Native Land Court the rival wliakapapas could be compared and the claims of everybody investigated. Judgment was reserved, the Chief Judge advising the parties to confer for the purpose of endeavoring to agree to a list of names. The Court adjourned till 10 o’clock this morning.