Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1361, 27 September 1883, Page 2

The subdivision of the Tangihanga Block came before the Native Land Court yesterday. Of all the subdivision oases that have come before His Honor Judge Brookfield, no two are alike. Each has a peculiar and distinguishing characteristic of its own. The one object which His donor appears to endeavor to keep steadily in view is meting out justice to all parties. The case of the Langihanga Blocs is deserving of special notice —nut so far as the block itself is concerned as the principle that is involved. Toe occasion we refer to wasone wnich gave Judge Bhookfield an opportunityof asserting bis views upon Native laud matiere. When His Honor asserts himself upon such matters be is luruibiu aud to t- e point; The point was in relation to a pernicious habit lately estab 1 shed in this district, and of which the NewZealand Native Land deti .einent Company is entitled to tlie questionable reputation of having inaugurated. We allude to the reckless manner in which signatures of Native, are obtained to deeds of conveyance, totally regardless of the fact whether or not the Natives have previously aaenated their inteiest m.the block. It wiil be seen at once that the bona fide European purchaser who buys a share in a block of land, for which interest he may pay £5O or £lOO, is in a totally different position to that of a company who only seek to obtain the signature of a Native to a conveyance, the consideration for which is a greenback, a valueless cheque, or some alluring promise as to what the vendor will get in the “ sweet bye and by.” The Native who has already parted with his land for valuable consideration sees when “fatal eloquence” is brought to bear, no harm in signing when he has already so <l. Should he, with an ineherent feeling ofnatur al justice arising within him, demur to sign away what he has already conveyed to another party, that very argument may be—nay, is, we believe, used, “why don’t you sign. It does not matter —you have already sold, you have nothing to lose.” But when those deeds are produced in the Native Land Court, and when those very signatures that, have been so obtained are submitted to a Judge of the Native Land Court, by a solicitor of the Supreme Court, and claimed to rank as of the same value as if they were fairly and honestly obtained—when such a thing as that is done—no one who knows Judge Brookfield will be surprised at his denouncing, as he did yesterday, a system that encourages such a state of things, as highly reprehensible. The original purchasers of interests in Tangihanga Block, Messrs Burnett, Kinross and Graham, hearing that the New’ Zealand Native Land Settlement Company contemplated a swoop in that direction, instructed their solicitors, Messrs Rrassey and Fraser, to furnish to the Company a list of all the Native owners who had sold to them. This, on the part of Messrs Graham and Kinross, was an act of courtesy, but still nothing more than might be reasonably expected from men honestly engaged in the acquisition of Native land. People at a distance, strangers to the ways of the Company, would imagine that when the Company’s solicitors acknowledged the receipt of that intimation that the Company for which they were legal advisers zealously abstained from purchasing shares already sold. That they warned the Natives wh-» had thus sold to Messrs B->rnelt, Kinross, and Graham, on no consideration to affix their signatures '■> the Company’s deed. The results, however, are completely against any such theory. The moral obliquity of the Company is so great ’

that the mere prospect of plunder whetted their appetites j and like a wolf on the fold, they first devoured the interests that had been already alienated. Thus partially satiated, in a spirit of repletion they oast about to acquire other shares. These they would have bought but the Native owners preferred the coin of the realm to the artistically prepared though delusive “ s *rip ” Judge Brookfield denounced alike agents and interpreters who lent themselves to such frauds. In the case of the New Zealand Land Company we believe it has been a special instruction to the r agents to obtain all signatures, irrespective of any co ns iue ration, that offer. On this instruction the Company’s agents have acted. We wish to be distinctly understood. The principle—or rather the want of principle that leads to inducing Natives who have already sold their land to sign again to other parties a« H'S H-nor Judge Brookfield justly remarked most reprens enable, and the men who lend themselves to it, be they agents of the Company or anybody else, deserved to be shewn no quarter. Once again, the Judge has, we feel convinced, struck a nail—an important nail—on the head, and his remarks yesterday should well be remembered. They should tend to remove some of the existing impurities in connection with Native Land dealing.