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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SHINGLE ON NATIVE LANDS

from Our Own Correspondent TE KUITI, Today. In the Native Land Court, sitting at To Kuiti yesterday, before Mr. Justice McCormick, an action by the AVaitomo County Council for an assessment of the value, under section 91 of the Native Land Court Act, of gravel faken from along the TVaipa River at Otorohanga. was heard. The land in question was owned by natives, and on January 16, 1917. the AVaitomo County Council obtained a proclamation over the area. Gravel had been taken from the river bank by the council then, but no application had been made within six months from the date of proclamation for compensation for the natives.

Claiming that they had been denied their rights owing to the whole river frontage having been taken .and that the land had been taken from a native kianga. the natives had petitioned .Parliament for cancellation of the proclamation. They desired that the land should bo re-vested in the native owners, and the Native Affairs Committee had left the petition in the hands of the Native Minister to be dealt with. The present action was for the purpose of assessing the compensation due to the natives. Mr. E. M. Mackersey appeared for the AVaitomo County, and Mr, J. D. Vernon represented the natives.

Counsel for the County Council contended that the value of the shingle was the value at the time of the proclamation, and shingle had no commercial or marketable value then. The owners were entitled to the value of the land at the time of the proclamation.

Evidence was given that in 1927 the shingle had practically no value, a.nd the presence of deposits did not increase the cost of land. Witnesses, on behalf of the natives, claimed that shingle had been taken out even before 1917, and had been paid for on a royalty basis. Evidence was given by a native owner that the taking of the land had cut off access from a native kianga to the river. After further evidence his Honour reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19290928.2.77

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 780, 28 September 1929, Page 8

Word Count
342

SHINGLE ON NATIVE LANDS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 780, 28 September 1929, Page 8

SHINGLE ON NATIVE LANDS Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 780, 28 September 1929, Page 8

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