CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5161, 6 October 1877, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

1 PERCY V. II’KAY. For plaintiff, Mr. Travers ; for defendant, Mr. Izard and Mr. Chapman. 1 From the opening statements of it appeared that the plaintiff in this action sought to recover possession of a piece of land in theTe Ore Ore Block which he had purchased from the natives, and for which he had paid in cash and stock ; but in consequence of the death of several of the vendors, and the difficulty in tracing the heirs, the purchase had not been formally completed- Ihe plaintiff, it was stated, took possession of the land and commenced to fence and cultivate it, when it was purchased over his head by the defendant, who, plaintiff alleged, was aware of his (plaintiff's) prior claim, which was also known to the Native Commissioner. Henry James Percy, farmer, living Ore Ore, deposed that he knew the natives (ten in number). Witness lived about half a mile from No. 2 Block. Had some conversation with them about the grantees. He consulted them ; he purchased the land, and they told him that Manuhiri’s portion had been set apart; and they all agreed to sell the property. That was in 1371.' Witness purchased the land from Manuhiri, and gave him £lO, and afterwards gave him some cows valued at £22. Witness got a receipt for the money. All the natives distinctly told him that they set the land apart for Manuhiri to sell. Manuhiri and two of the orantees put witness in possession two or three' days after the contract was made. McKay fenced it for £9, and was paid. McKay was told all about the purchase. Witness was still in possession of the land. Heard since that the land had been purchased by McKay, who wave witness notice that he had purchased it. Manuhiri, after the sale to McKay, offered witness the money he received back. Witness had never been told by Manuhiri that Major Heaphy, the Native Lands Frauds Commissioner, said that the sale was invalid ; that as all the ten natives had an interest in the land one could not sell it. was called, and stated that he was one of the grantees of the land—Te Ore Ore (Block No. 2. It was originally Crown granted to the natives, and it was afterwards divided amongst them. Six of the grantees leased the land To a settler named Collins. The reason that only six agreed to lease was that the other four were Kingites, and at that time the Kinmtes would not deal with the pakeha in land? The six grantees did not inform the four that the land was leased. When the four heard of it they got the land divided into two, the six to take one portion, and the four the other. There was no further subdivision. Witness was the only person who entered into the agreement to sell the land to Percy. _ Before he sold the land he had no conversation with the other grantees about it. He afterwards had an agreement with Mclxay, in which all the other natives joined. Last Sunday week Percv asked witness to come to Wellington to tell the truth about the matter and the documents he had signed. A long argument here ensued as to the equal shares of the natives in the land. It had been granted in common, and his Honor was of opinion that it would require a certificate from the Native Lands Court to determine the interests in the land. Manuhiri continued his evidence, and stated that he only sold a portion of the_ 64 acres divided off for the four kingites. His portion was sixteen acres. Mr. Travers pointed out that this showed that the natives had agreed to divide the land equally. There were 160 acres belonging to ten natives, which would he sixteen acres for each individual. Several native witnesses interested in the block were called, and their evidence was to the effect that the land had been partitioned, but that they were not aware in 1871 that Manuhiri had sold his portion to Percy. George McKay, the defendant, stated that a deed was executed between him and Manuhiri and the other grantees, for the purchase of the land occupied by Percy. That was about November 1574. Percy refused to give up possession. He knew that Percy was in occupation of the land, but he was not aware of the nature of his interest in the land now in dispute. In cross-examination by Mr. Travers witness admitted that he put up the fence on the land for Percy, and got paid. He never asked Percy what interest he had in the land. Several issues were put to the jury, who returned a verdict substantially for the plaintiff.