MAORI OWNERSHIP

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 988, 6 May 1911, Page 3

MAORI OWNERSHIP

THE HOROWHENUA BLOCK.

CASE IN THE APPEAL COURT.

The Horowhenua Block, near Levin, which has been the subject of much litigation, is again engaging the attention of the judiciary. In 1898 the Native Appellate Court, made an order regarding Division No. n,and from that order omitted the names of certain natives who claimed to have been interested therein. A certificate was issued to 143 persons as being interested in the block. Afterwards it was divided, and regarding Division 11 the title was issued to two persons, Meiha Keepa and Warena Te Hakeke. This divison was divided into two pieces, 11A and 118, and litigation was commenced in 1894, with the object of having it declared that the persons to whom the division was granted were trustees for certain parties. The Supreme Court held that they did hold the land in trust for the 143 persons, and the Court directed that the Native Land Court should determine tne interests of the 143 or their representatives in the two portions of the division. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against this finding. The Act of 1895 postponed all dealings in the blocks, and authorised the., issue of a commission, which investigated everything connected with the Horowhenua Block. Under the Horowhenua Block Act of 1896, the Native Appellate Court made an order,' in since disputed, which excluded from the benefits of ownership in the block certain persons or their descendants who were in the list of 143 persons. Certain of the excluded parties applied to the Supreme Court for a certiorari to quash the order of the Appellate Comt. Ou August 19th, 1910, Sir Robert Stout declared that the order of the Native Appellate Court must stand.

An appeal against His Honor’s decision was heard yesterday by the Court of Appeal, consisting of Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Chapman, and Mr Justice Sim. Counsel tor the natives moved that the judgment be set aside, and that judgment be entered loir the appellants decreeing that the order of the Native Appellate Court of September 20th, 1898, and all subsequent partition orders purporting to affect any part of the land, the order, and all titles issued in pursuance thereof may be returned to the Court for the purpose of being quashed. Mr P. E. Baldwin appeared for the appellants, and the SolicitorGeneral (Mr J, W. Salmond) for the Chief Judge of the Native Appellate Court (in opposition to the motion). The argument was not completed when the Court adjourned.