Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1298, 17 March 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, MARCH 17, 1883.

Their Honors Judges O’Brien and Wn,« M4MU may be fairly congratulated upon the success that attended their labors during the sitting of the Native Land Court which terminated on Tuesday last. Not that we deem that their Honors have for ever closed the disputes that have so long existed over the Whataupoko, Matawhero, and other blocks. Such a condition of affairs can scarcely be looked to in the natural order of things. But their Honors did very well, and they might have done much worse. They dealt with Makauri in, if not a masterly manner, at all events in such a way as left no doubt upon any unbiassed mind that the had both in Court and out of Court, studied the question much, and were thoroughly conversant with all the details of the long and tedious proceedings that had taken place before J udge Rogan, by whom it will be remembered the Makauri Block was subdivided in 1875. Their honors, minds being perfectly clear upon all that then transpired ; and when it was proved conclusively that the subdivisions formerly made were, on the 30th of Nov., 187-5, agreed to by all parties, the only course in accordance with law for the Court to pursue was to validate the former orders. And this, with a few minor exceptions, the Court did, and it acted wisely and justly to all parties by so doing. Not that all parties are satisfied. By no means. Some mu rmu rings are still going in, Mr. Locke especially considering he has been hardly used. The Court could not, and did not, recognize the changed circumstances that had been brought about by Mr. Locke as the representation ef the late Captain Read’s interests having since the former subdivision validated some of the former shares sold to Captain Read, and bought by him, the original purchase of w’hich was questioned. Had Mr. Locke applied under the Division Act, 1882, simply for a division of the block, his position now might have been different, but he, along with others, applied practically that the former subdivisions shoula be re-heard ; the Court did so, but the Court, as may be readily discerned, had no power to take cognizance of anything that occurred subsequent to the former decision New certificates of title will shortly issue for the subdivided portions, and we may reasonably hope that before long other important subdivisions will be made. The Kaiti Block is specially deserving of the attention of the Court for the purposes of partition. And more improbable things might come to pass than the selling of Kaiti in small areas before the sale takes place of the much-advertized and much-litigated Whataupoko No. 3.