NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2054, 15 April 1907, Page 1

NATIVE APPELLATE COURT.

GISBORNE oIjTING. The sitting of tho Native Appellate Court continued at the Native Land Court yesterday. The appeal of Hint Parekowluii regarding Puhatikotiko 2 15 2 was dismissed, as appellant did not appear. The a ppeal.s of AVi Hocta and Ivataraina to Ngalie regarding the Tarako block were taken together. Counsel for Ivataraina stated that he objected to the inclusion in the block "of four persons who had land elsewhere. His clients had been in occupation for five generations. One of tho persons objected to did not live on the block hut lived wholly in Gisborne. These people had been put on the block, hut their relations had not. This seemed to imply that they had no claim to bo there. In the lower Court these four persons had boon recognised. Twenty-four persons wero shifted from Riinuroa to Tarake, but were soon shifted back to their first location. The appellant then applied that as the four persons objected to wore let in on the same grounds they also should be shifted, hut the Court said it could not alter its decision.

AVi Hoeta appeared in person. He went extensively into the genealogy of tho case, and drew attention to tho fact that an elder brother of one of the persons objected to had been accepted by Ivataraina in a list of Tarake owners. He would like the Appellate Court to amend the lists, hut he was contented to let it go back to the Native Land Court for revision, as desired hv Ivataraina He had had to take the present steps to protect his interests. In reply to the Bench Hoeta said that if the twenty-four could not he put on tlie Tarake list, the four should still remain there.

The Chief Judge pointed out that under the special Act dealing with the matter it was provided that a person with rights in Rimuroa could be put in Tarake. Judgment was reserved. The appeal of Apirana Takitahi regarding Kahotea was next taken. The appellant said ho objected to the decision given because his house, hurying-grqund, and planations were taken away by it, Personally he was not in the block, hut his father was. None of his children were.

At this stage the case was adjourned till Monday morning. After the luncheon adjournment an application was hoard from Hemi Toheriri and Arawhile Ngarangione regarding Nukutaurua 2 and 3. Mr. Bright, supporting the application, said the title to the land was originally granted from the Crown in 1807, The land was restricted against sale or mortgage, or lease for more than 21 years with the consent of the Governor. In 189/ this grant was revoked and Tamiliana was granted 242 acres as from 1895. This validation decree revoked all previous title and should he taken as tjip only valid title. He held that now the land was absolute--! Iv free from restriction. He quoted a number of cases in which it was proved that a Maori eou/d make a will. He wished the ease sent back to the Native Band Court. Mr. Nolan, contesting the application, said that the applicant alleged that in 1901 the. land was devised to him by will. Ho also said that in 1902 the Native Land Court sitting at Gisborne granted probate ofTamihnnn’s will as regards the. personal estate, but refused probate as regards the reality. The application then made was for probate of the full will and he had opposed it on the ground that a Maori could not devise reality. The Judge took the same view and refused probate of the. reality, The decree mentioned by Mr. Bright had been brought up on that occasion, and Mr. Brights arguments were used. To his mind the application had been made too late. Section 2 of the Act of 1905 laid it down that the application should bo made within three years of the date of the order objected to. It was highly necessary that there should be some limit to the time during which applications might he made —otherwise there would he no safety for Europeans or Maoris. In all cases where the descent was from Maori to Maori the limit was especially necessary. He thought it reasonable to suppose that an application for probate was equal to an application for succession. The Validation Court was not created to do anything as suggested, and it had no power to do so. Tindecree was really a lease decree, keeping alive the interests of the natives and showing what they were. The application before the Validation Court was one to validate a lease held by Mr. Ormond. The de-

only voided previous titles sufficiently to validate) tho lease given by the decree. The native did not rant n title—lie had a good oho already, being one of the original lwncrs. The Validation Court was never intended to alter the titles of my native, and the decree made interfered with or affected none of the original restrictions on the title. Tamiliana’s title to the land ■' was never in contest and never could he. The land must stand on the original title. The wording of the decree merely showed that, the natives were inti tied to the estate, and nothing ■vas said regarding the removal of restrictions or anything else. In the ease King v. Price the conditions wore different to this ease. In that case the restrictions attached to the owner whereas in this case the restriction attached to the land. In King and Price tho native title had boon extinguished by the land being ceded to the Crown, lint in this case tho original title was still in force. The question of whether land like the present could ho devised h,v will,, bad never boon raised and argued. The lino dividing tile cases was. fine, but be would beg to bring its "existence under the notice of the Ronoli. Mr. Bright said flint the application was to vary a succession order, and was therefore in time.

Decision of tho question was held over.

The Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning. ,