CORRESPONDENCE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 287, 7 July 1875, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

Uur columns are open for free discussion; but we do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions of our Correspondents. —:o:

COUNSEL, AND THE NATIVE LANDS COURT.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Your contemporary the Herald in last Friday’s issue has a sub-leader on my having asserted my right as a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, to appear on behalf of Mr. Johnson in the Native Lands Court on Wednesday last. The editor is evidently laboring under a mistake when he says that I argued with considerable force that “it was absohtffely necessary, even in an equitable, as well .as in a legal, point of view, that counsel should be permitted to act on behalf of both Maoris and Europeans in subdivision cases.” Had your contemporary had a representative in Court at the time, possibly a different effect might have been the result and “ the cogency of the reasoning “ made more apparent. The gist of my argument was, to the effect,, Ist. That the intention of the “ Native Lands Act, 1873 ” was only to exclude Counsel arid Agents from appearing for claimants when the Kative title was under investigation, that' is when the land was .passing through the Court in the first instance, when the right of a Native to be placed on the memorial of ownership rested on tribal or ancestral rights. 2nd. That when tl,e rights of the different Natives fo be placed on the memorial of ownership,

had been ascertained, or when the Crown Grant had been issued, then, I contended that it was not the intention of the Legislature, nor was it politic to exclude professional! men from representing their clients iiv Court. 3rd. That counsel had a right of audience in all Courts of record and that suitors had a right to be represented by counsel; and to prevent that was ultra vires. ,Those were the grounds I used. The main object in suitors or litigants being allowed counsel to represent them is that both parties' may stand on an equal footing, for it frequently happens both amongst Europeans and Natives that one party is much more intelligent than the other, and, consequently much more able to conduct his case than his less intelligent opponent. If it is right and just to prohibit counsel from appearing for a European client in the Native Lands Court, or to deprive a Europeap from being represented there by counsel, tfie*same principle may be extended to other Courts. If it is rendered necessary as a matter of expediency, then let the profession be compensated for the loss entailed on them. The effect of the decision in my case is to deprive me of a two hundred guinea retainer from some of the Natives themselves, besides several hundred pounds yearly. Your contemporary states that it is Cvidentfrom the expressed opinion of the Maori claimants as well as of the Native Assessors " that the appearance of counsel in any Lands Court in this district would overthrow the work of years.” Where is the expressed opinion of the Maori claimants ? Only one Maori spoke and that was Riperata, one of the most powerful and intelligent of her race, who is quite capable of coping withfanyone, and who does nqt require counsel. Why should the admission of counsel to appear* overthrow the work of years ? If the work of years has been illegal, the sooner it is overthrown the better. As well might it be said it Would be impolitic to permit an appeal agaiuit a decision of one of the judges to a superior court, or to the Privy Council, because the result might be the upsetting of several titles. I beg to differ from the opinion of Judge Bogan on this question, namely that if counsel were admitted there would be no suitors. Natives are very willing to adopt our laws, and resort to our courts instead of their own native tribunals ; and are only too ready to retain counsel. As an instance, I hold both special and general retainers from them.

Apologising for trespassing at so great a length.—l am, Ac., W. Wilvbid Wilson. July 6, 1875.