AN INTERMINABLE CASE.

Grey River Argus, 10 April 1911, Page 1

AN INTERMINABLE CASE.

A. ©ART-LOAD .OF EVIIDEN.CiE

• .'■ AUGKOLA-ND, April 4. TamoaUsm is a disease which affects a • wide area of the North Island. What the word "taihoa" means and all its exasperating- 'bearing: on settlement is well told in an iri'tresting- report furnished to the "Herald.this morning- &y the Tauniarunui correspondent. He * says : Another act of the drama 'of the 'Pu- . kuweka : block case- Eas been played, but it is by no means the firial one. The case is a New Zealand replica of the famous- Chancery <cuk described by (Dickens in '"'Bleak House." The evidence » given- during- its many ■ 'hearings since the yeai' ■ 1886 is so ' voluminous that (the bulky "tomes containing- it ihad-to-.be broug-ht J|n an express cart to the Native Appellate' Court lately sitting- at Tarmarunui. For days previously the natives interested, had been assembling- from all points of the compass. iNone of the natives were required to give evidence except Te HeuoHeu, a great rang-atira. The iblock is at present • paying considerable timber royalties, and these are to some extent being held over till the rightful owners are ascertained. The Court for several days went through ponderous argument and endless reading- of old evidence from the shabby manuscript volumes. At last the final stag:es ap- s proached; the rival tribesmen crowded the court, many sitting on the floor and even around counsel's table. iHikiaha, the picturesque chief and reciter of the "Wakapapas, 5 was conridentiy anticipating a favourable •verdict confirming- that given 'by Judge Holland last year. At this stage counsel questioned the jurisdiction of the Court. The layman, owing to his lack of 1 legal training, is unable to understand why' the jurisdiction of the Court should not have been questioned long before the enormous expense of the hearing was incurred. iMuch elaborate argument was adduced to show that the tribunal before which been pleading 'in all apparent good faith for the previous few days was not, as a matter of fact, competent to try. the case at all. '.*'"' It is really worth while to glance at the .main course of the argument. This case was first heard by Judge Mair in .1886,. then .-by .Judge Gudgeon in 1897, and on appeal by Judge Mair and Scannell in 1900. Then it seemed to be at rest for, ever, but Parliamen, being moved thereto by petition, appointed a Royal Commis? sion to enquire into the facts," with the result that it was reopened ,and came before Judge Gilfedder in 190j?. An appeal against his decision "was heard the same year by Judges Seth Smith and MoCormick, and for some reason it was heard again last year by Judge Holland in Taumarunuji. His decision was promply appealed against, and the case brought before the present Court, consisting of Judges McCormack and (Rtawson. Now, calling these tribunals in turn A, Bf C, )D, etc., the contentibn is that since B upset and cancelled A, and C came along and- quashed B, therefore A should stand " in • its entirety; /but, after C the parliamentary intervention came, which" it is urged I completely disposed of A, B, and C, I and made a fresh start with'D. Whei ther E is entitled to pay'-anw regard to the proceedings of A, B, 1 and C is of course an important matter to settle; When one of the counsel- was asked his opinion on this point he shook" his head sadly, and said he would want two daj's to consider the point. It is a very pretty- quarrel as it stands, as Sir Lucius Otriggerwould say. A' case will be stated for the Supreme Court, all tliree councils concurring as to the necessity^ of.this course. If the Supreme Court decides against" the jurisdiction of the Native Appellate Court, the case, will probably t'e sent back to some lower Court.