Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE N.Z.N.L.S. COMPANY.

With a view of showing outside opinions as to the mode in which the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company conducts its business, we give the following from the Napier Telegraph u A case came before the Native Lands Court at Gisborne the other day, which illustrates in a very forcible manner one of the peculiar methods adopted by Europeans in order to secure a claim to Native land, We have heard a good deal of the involved titles of the Maori lands on the East Coast; we have known of all sorts of litigation in respect of Native lands, but we can conceive of no more fruitful source of trouble and ex* pense than the peculiar method of buying to which we refer. The particulars of the case in point are set forth in an issue of Facts, of September 28th last Some time ago Capt Porter brought before the notice of the Government the fact that certain licensed interpreters in Poverty Bay were in the habit of persuading Natives to sell their shares in blocks of land a second time, after having once disposed of them and signed conveyances, The Government referred the matter for enquiry to the Judge of the Native Landa Court, and curiously enough ’ (says our Gisborne contemporary) ‘a case cropped up in that Court on Wednesday in the application by the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company, Limited, for the sub* division of the Tangihanga Block, which was under a long lease to Messrs Kinross, Graham and Burnett. Twenty-one grantees after having sold their interests to Messrs Graham and Co. and signed the deed of conveyance to those gentlemen, had been induced to resell to the Company, Mr W. L. Rees defended this course of action as being legal and right, but Judge Brookfield took a very different view of it and denounced it in no measured terms, expressing his surprise at hearing it upheld by a member of the Bar. The Judge told the interpreter to make it perfectly understood to the Natives present that selling to a second person after having previously sold to a first, was a fraudulent transaction, and any one found doing so would be liable to punishment. He also stated that for the future where any such cases were brought under his notice he would not have them in his Court.’ It will be seen from the foregoing that that which appears to Mr Rees as being perfectly right ana legal is regarded and denounced by Judge Brookfield as exactly the reverse. We think public opinion will side with the Judge. It is generally thought that it is neither legal nor right to induce any person to break an agreement, made in all good faith, and in which a fair consideration has been paid for the value received. If this principle is not recognised in the system of morality binding native land transactions the sooner all such transactions are rendered impossible by the resumption by the Crown of its sole right to purchase Maori lands the better it will be for Europeans and natives. In addressing the House on the question of the Native Lands Settlement Empowering Bill, Mr DeLautour said that all those who were interested in any degree in promoting the Bill would give the Government all the assistance in their power to suppress the grevious scandals that were at present causing the Native Land Court to be a reproach. And he went on to say that the supporters of the Bill would assist the Government in giving vital force to the suppression of all illegal purchases of land now going on in the North Island, In that speech Mr DeLautour held himself “ responsible for every act the company has ever performed.” Well, then, we are inclined to ask, is it a grevious scandal to buy or offer to purchase claims to land that are known to be already sold ; does it aid in the sup* pression of illegal purchasing when the counsel for this company of Mr DeLautour’s defends the right to treat for lands from people who have already sold their interests in them ? We are exceedingly glad that Judge Brookfield has spoken with no uncertain sound, and we trust that his opinion will be upheld, and his example followed by every Judge of the Native Lands Court,

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/PBS18831011.2.28

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1367, 11 October 1883, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
727

THE N.Z.N.L.S. COMPANY. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1367, 11 October 1883, Page 4

THE N.Z.N.L.S. COMPANY. Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1367, 11 October 1883, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert