NATIVE LAND COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 1, 27 October 1883, Page 3

NATIVE LAND COURT.

THURSDAY, 25th Ocr. 3883. Haiti, 4,350 Ac?ej. Thb lubdivision of this important b’ock again came before His Honor Judg* Brookfield on Thursday last. His Honor enquired if any arrangement had been come to between the parties. Mr E. F. Harris, on behalf of Butene's party stated that he had done all he could to bring about a settlement of the question, but the principal dissenienta had refused altogether anything approaching an ami* Cable settlement of the subdivision of the block. He had prepared an amended list of the persons whom he considered at dually entitled to the land. There were 23 on his ?ide i these persons he considered were large owners, and were entitled to 103 acres each out of the 2900 acres, the two-thirds of the block for Hirini’s aide—the remaining one third for Riperata, and the people admitted by her. Thirty-eight others, included Mrs Gannon,—and the people claiming with her were only entitled according to his estimate, to two acres and seven perches each. M* Harris then submitted the foregoing proposition al from Rutfene Te Eke. Hirini Te Rank’s proposal was then put in by Mr Harris, It proposed to give the dissenienta 4 acres each, and for Mrs Gannon and her relations 12 acres.

Objectors being challenged, many appeared. Captain Porter and Mr Gannon formally protested.

Discuseion then followed. Mr Rees pointed out that a large hnmber of,the Native owners had entered into written contracts with the Company, Und that various deeds had been executed by them. Altogether a liability of £30,000 was outstanding, /or which the Kaiti Block was to form the security, in order that the interests of the Europeans should be protected. His Honor stated that the Court could take no cognizance of the deeds ; that the land being under the 17 section of the Act, 1876, was inalienable, deeds therefore purporting to acquire abates by purchase were illegal documents. Mr Brassey here interposed warmly, and stated that the arrangements intended to be carried out by the deeds referred to by Mr Rees had never beten completed, and that Mr Dottll had been very badly used over the whole matter, being in one instance a dead loser of over £2OOO. Optain Porter commented by the unreasonable nature of the proposals made, and ♦bought the best course would be for the Court to take into its own hands the subdivision of the block, and divide it into two aggregate portions. Mr Gannon wished to know in which basis Mr Harris had arrived at the estimate area for the dissent|enti). At present nil parties were simply fighting shadows. The dissentimts had nothing, «<* far, to refute but the bare statement from the other side as to what they were entitled to. It Was quite true that the people be represented declined to discuss with Mr Harris or , Mutene What portion they were entitled to in I the block. The records of the Court would j show’ the bona fide* of the claim set up by Mrs Gannon and her relations. They were entitled to a very substantial interest or they werenteitled to nothing at all. His Honor asked if it were desirable to to divide the block into two portion®—one for Rutene and his people; the other for Riperata Kahutia and those with her. To this Riperata cordially assented-. She stated that such had bean her own idea all through. Mrs Gannon and the other dissentients highly approved of the suggestion made by the Court, Mr Harris dissented, and said he would withdraw his claim. He was altogether opposed to the suggestion made. Captain Porter considered the proposal a wise one, and hoped the Court would give effect to it,

The Court then adjourned, On the Court resuming at 2.30 p.m., Riperata Kahutia appeared, After some tome preliminary remarks, she stated she did not want the line between RaUue and herself defined at present. The’Court asked how it was that she had charged h®r mind on the subject within the last hour.

Riperata said she wished to confer with Rutene.

Mr Harris said it had been arranged owing to the interval for lunch, that Riperata should see Rutene at 4 o'clock that afternoon.

His Honor asked Riperata to define the boundary of her own individual portion. Riperata did not do so, although questioned by the Court at great length and urged to do 10, Persisting in her refusal to define her own individual portion, His Honor dismissed her claim for subdivision.

This, however, in no way debarred other parties who had made application for having their claims heard, His Honor said that the first thing to be done was to define the boundary between Rutene and Riperata, after that the question of other subdivisions could be gone into. If a majority of the owners, however, desired the block to be divided into two aggregate lots the Court would do so.

The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m. on Friday morning, having previously intimated its intention of going over to Butene's house.

Friday. The Court opened at 10 a.m. Ramera Turoa applied thac the subdivision of the block might be gone on with, on the application of himself and wife. His Honor Judge Brookfield enquired that if any arrangement had yet been arrived at between Rutene and Riperata Kahutia, and was informed in the negative. His Honor said he felt bound to remark that he considered that the people who were advising Riperata and Rutene against settling the tribal boundary between them were doing all in their power to stop the progress of the place. There was evidently great greediness on the part of some persons for land. Those people were standing in their own light. Mr Rees: lam the sole adviser of these people. His Honor : I understood you to say yesterday that you had abstained from advising them. Mr Rees : Yes. They have no adviser in case. I consulted with nearly the whole of the N' tives in a body. I took an agreement between Rutene and Riperata Kahutia, that the question between them as to their tribal boundary should not be raised, otherwise a quarrel would ensue. His Honor—That makes it more difficult to subdivide, and more essential that the boundary line between them should be struck. That must be first done, and unless it is settled this Court w’ould make an order that no subdivision be made until that line is determined. Mr Rees said that he would take the matter to the Supreme Court and compel the Native Land Court to make a subdivision. He complained of the remarks made by His Honor as to the evil advice given to Rutene and Riperata His Honor stated that he did not refer to Mr Rees. Mr Rees said he should have given absolutely the advice they had followed. The

Court seemed determined not to proceed in * this case in the way laid down by the people. 11 is Honor said that it was for the Court to make such orders as it’thought just.

Mr Gannon produced the plan of the Court, and pointed out that the road run* ing from opposite Gladstone Road to the beach at AX aiuui, divided the land, which had been marked on the map that morning, into two-thirds (2900 acres) on one side, and one-third (1450 acres) on the other. It was apparently intended by Judge Munro’s order that the land should be divided in that proportion between Rutene and Ripcrata’s parties. Mr Rees claimed to represent about two-thirds of the owner, and taking the road as a common boundary line some arrangement might be come to between the opposing parties.

On His Honor drawing Mr Rees' attention to this matter, Mr Hees addressed the Bench in such violent language that His Honor ordered Mr Rees out of the Court, and forbade him appearing again before it. The case was ordered to stand over pend» ing the settlement of the boundary line between Riperata and Rutene,