WHOSE LAND?

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 237, 27 May 1932, Page 5

WHOSE LAND?

CHARGES AT JAyPp timber cqy abjq natives at variance as to title POST SPLITTING AT MAROA Two young Maoris, Whaite Te Tua and Taite Raimona, who appeared b'efore Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M. in the Taupo Magistrate's Court yesterday, pleaded not guilty to separate charges of the theft of 162 posts from the Taupo Totara Timber Company's proper ty at Maroa bush. Charles Edward Clark in charge of this area of the bush for the company stated that he had recpived ihformation that the two accused had been cutting posts on the company^s property. He had^ investigated and discovered that a "quantity" of posts had been cut. - - ' ' ■ The two accused did not deny cut= ting the posts, but claimed that the land was their own property. They had not been on the company's property. Herman Bennett Coupe, manager- • for the company said that his company had bought the land in question in 1901. . • Te Tua protested that his hold people" had pointed out the boundary between the company's land and their own, and that they had heen on their own land. The Magistrate said that the only proper boundary was that accepte^ by the Lands Office. There was no doubt that the company held the title to the land in question. Through an interpreter, his worshi|> asked the men whether they wquijl undertake to remain on their " lati(j ;f he dismissed the' charge. Thpy apneared to hjrn to be laboui'ipg upder misapprehension as to the owner-; ship of the land. "Nq Mistakie Possible Mr. Coupe said that he thought that there was no possibijity of the men mistaking the line. The cqmpany had had a great deal of frouble through trespass and thieving, and had lost some hundreds of pounui y/orth of timber in this manner. A number of natives had been res-f£.. . ponsible for the trouble, and the pre- j sent case had been brought. as' dri example. In order to defirie the boundary line between its owq prpnerty and the adjourning native landj the company had gone to thd expense of cutting a track a chain wide. ' Constable Brown said that he had inspected the place where tpe meri had been splitting the posts, and there. was no doubt that they had been on the company's lqnd. The boundary line was clearly defined. The two accused had heen living in the district for some time, ancj. personally he thought they were "syeil acquainted with the boundary." His Worship said he was not satisfied that the accused had knowingly acted wrongly. It seemed to Ijim that it was more a matter for civjl action for trespass than for a^police action and he would dismiss * the' charge in this case, but the accused must clearly understand that if the company took civil action against them they could, he forcpd to pay heavj( damages^ ___