MR HUMPHRIES' PETITION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 8154, 11 July 1906, Page 2

MR HUMPHRIES' PETITION.

THE CHIIiF JUSTICE'S REPORT NO GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT AGAINST PUBLIC TRUSTEE.

With reference to the petition of Mr William Humphries which was before Parliament in 1901 and again in the session of 1905, the Nativo Affairs Committee finally decided " that it would recommend the Government to set up a Royal Commission to make full enquiry into the alleged complaints on the understanding that this enquiry should be finxl and conclusive." Acting on this, His Excellency the Governor on the 27th February last appointed the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) a Commissioner, and his report has now come to hand. From it we take the following extracts; — "There were four questions on which I was to hold enquiry. They are as follows:

1 Whether, having regard to the whole of the transactions and dealings of the said William Humphries with the natives int nested in oertain lands mentioned in the eleventh schedule ot "The Reserves and Other Lands Sale Disposal and Enabling and Public Bodies Empowering Act, 1901," the passing of Soction 15 of " The Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act, 1902," was in equity and good conscience unjust and unreasonable ? 2. Whether the said William Hum. phries is entitled in equity and good conscience to any compensation from the colony of New Zealand by reason of the legislation of 1901 and 1902 above referred to, and if so, how much ?

3. Whether, under the circumstances alleged in the petition of the said William Humphries, during the session of 1904 (No. 36, 1904.), the said William Humphries is entitled in equity and good conscience to any compensation from the colony of New Zealand, whether for costs and expenses incurred by him in the endeavour to complete his titles to the said lands, called No. 3 Puketotara, No i Ratahangae, No. 23 Part Eaiomiti, A Purakau, Paraiti and C, Hua, or in any other respect, 4. Whether the said William Humphries has any cause of complaint against the Public Trustee in connection with such dealings or legislation ? The Commission was opened at Wanganui on Friday, the first of June, and there were present at the sitting William Humphries, who was represented by his counsel Mr Skerrett and Mr Hutcheu, and Mr T. W. Fisher, the agent for the Public Trustee, who was represented by his counsel Mr Kerr. Only two witnesses were examined, Mr Humphries and Mr Fisher, and there were very few facts m contest between the parties. The matters in contest were really what inferences were to be drawn from the admitted facts.

It will be necessary to state briefly the position in reference to the parcels of land of which the claimant, Mr Humphries, complains that he was deprived. These were four small parcels of land. He also claims thai he is entitled to compensation for costs and expenses incurred ky him in reference to his completing his titles to other lands. All the lands which lie claimed wero native reserves, and the four parcels of land to which his title was not completed were reserves vested in the Public Trustee.

The claimant states that he, and others in Taranaki, knowing that the Native Land Court had given judgment determining who were entitled to the land, proceeded to negotiate with the natives before the orders of the Court were issued; and it is clear that he took a mortgage over tho following lands, namely, Raiomiti Sections 23 and 158, part of Ratahang ie, and part of Purakau, before any order was issued and sealed by the Nitive Land Court, and before any title to the land was acquired by the Natives under either Crown grant, memorial of ownership, or certificate of title. In so doing, ho ,vus offending against the provisions of " The Native Lands Frauds Prevention Act, IS,St, Amendment Act, 1888," which provides that it shall not be lawful for any person to negotiate, either on his own behalf, or as agent or trustee for any other person, for tho purchase, conveyance, transfer, lease, exchange, or occupation of any native lands, or of any land, or any estate, right, title, or interest therein, or for anv agency or authority to deal therewith or in relation thereto, unless such land was owned under Crown grant, memorial of ownership, or certificate of title, issued under either a Native Land Court, or under the Land Transfer Act, etc.. or unless such land should become, and should have been owned for forty days. Any person who acted contrary to this provision was liable to a penalty hot exceeding £SOO, to be recovered in a summary way. Notwithstanding this provision, however, the claimant obtained a mortgage from certnin Maoris of the four pieces of land mentioned, along with other land, The mortgage on its face showed that there was no registered title to these four piecrs of land, and it is strange that the Trust Commissioners, seeing this, and knowing the provisims of " The Native Lands Frauds Pi'rventifn Act, 1881," Amendment the instrument was not invalid. Further, it is n'si strange that the District Ijind Registrar should have registered sue'i an instrument, which, on its face, shwed that the law was beinc violated

The mergage purported to be in consideration of the sum of £2)O, in which sum the natives were expressed t> be indebted to the elaiivait jointly •ind severalty. It contained provision tlr>t the mor <ragirs were to pay the aid sum of £'2ro and any further sunn that might h ive been advanced, immediatily upon rf q (est in writing under ';he hand of the mortage \ si that the day after the mortgage was signed the mortgage coi'd have compered the mortgagors to pay the amount due. If default was male in rayment of the moneys for three mouths after such demand, then the m-rtgageo could, at the end of the said three months or at any time thereafter have exercised a power of sale. The claimant, in pursuance of this power of sale, called upon the mortgagors to pay the amouut due—at what precise date was not stated at the heiring—and the amount, apparently, having been oaid, he asked the Registrar of the Supreme Court to sell the land, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court pro-ee led to do so. On the 18th of Aug'i«t, 1804, the eight pieces of land comprised in the mortg ago were sold to the claimant for the sum of £IOO. The Registrar executed a transfer on the 31st of August, 189 J.. As regards the four nieces of land registered under the Lind Transfer Art, the claimant not a complete title to these pieces on sueh transfer. How the Registrar of the Supreme Court came to ignore the position of the title to th?se|four parcels, the subject, of this Commission, is unexplained, and seems extraordinary. In 1891, in the month of August, caveats were lodged in the Land Transfer Ollico r.t, New Plymouth, or. behalf of the Public Trustee, forbidding any dealings with tlicso four parcels of land

His Honor after going very fully into the numerous trans \ctions and the position of law with reference to these reserves, decided the four questions submitted to him as under: 1. In mv opinion, the passing of Section 15 of "The Native and Aiaovi Land Laws Amendment Act, 1901." 'wis neither unjust nor unreasonable. 1 go further, and state that if the Act, had not been passed, a gross wring; would have beon done to tlioae who may be entitled to the benefit of these native reserves It has to be noticed that tlie claimant; knew that Iv was dealing with native reserves, and he ought to have known that some, at all events, of these native reserves wero vested in the Publi' Trustcouuder "The Native Besoms Act, 1882." Further, he ought to ha 1 . - " known that, in negotiating for or don'ing with the Maoris concerning land ti which title had not been duly issued lie was violating t-lio provisions 0" "T!w Native lands Frauds Preyeottoa

Act." The Legislature in passing Section 15 of " Tho Native and Maori Land Laws Amendment Act, 1902," and the Public Trustee in recognising the validity of the mortgage so far as regards those lands, were allowing the claimant a concession, instead of injflicting on him an injnrv. tTe might 1 have been prosecuted under tho Act for ; a penalty. Both he and other person* who were dealing with native reserves must be presumed to have known the law.

2. I am of opinion that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation From tho colonv by renson of tho Legislation of either lOnl or 1902. 3. I am of opinion that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation for the cost 3 and expenses incurred by him m the endeavour to complete his titles. He should have waited until the titles were complete nndt r the Land Transfer Act, before bargaining with th» Maoris. If he had done so, his Htl ! would have been complete, and if hi« title had been afterwards upset, he | would have been entitled to full compensation from the Assurance Fund, rf a person chooses to deal either with "Maoris or Europeans, who have not a tomplete title to the land being dealt vith, it is no part of the duty of the Legislature to give that p ,'rson relief. Ct is only in Maori transactions that the Legislature has ever interfered to ;rant such relief, and, in my opinion, in nine cases out of ten the interference was not justified. 4. I am of opinion that the claimant has no cause of complaint against the Public Trustee. On the contrary, in my opinion, if the Public Trustee had not taken the steps he did take to preserve the trust estates vested in him, ho would not have been performing his duty. The claimant sent in an accouat, making out that he had ..sustained a very heavy loss. (See Appendix " B") If the whole of his transactions are looked at, it will be seen that he has nade a large gain out of Jiis dealings m these native reserves. First, it has to be observed that his mortgage was not a payment of money to the Maoris like an ordinary mortgage transaction. The mortgage was to secure a pre-exist-ing debt and further advances, According to the account rendered by him, there was the sum of £l9B 3s 5d due to him by tho mortga{ors at the time of the execution of the mortgage. Of this sum £IOO seems to 'iave been an amount secured by bills of sale. How that amount was paid by him to the mortgagors does not ippear. Of the remaining £9B 2s 6d, 6-18 16s 6d was for interest and commssion—(£23 for commission and expenses to Wellington by the claimant it £2 2s a day, and £25 16s 6d was for interest). Tho interest on the mortfage was at ten per cent. This is not, therefore, a case of making an advance in the security of property tendered for a mortgage, but an attempt to get security after an advance to Maoris over any land that they possessed. The claimant says that he would not 'lave given the cash advances he gave, if he had not been aware of the judgment of the Native Land Court entitling these Maoris to orders. Even if this is the case, the position of the matter is not altered.

The easy way in wliieh many persons who are dealing in native lands get their transactions violated by Parliament, a practice which has grown for the past Venty years, should, I think, necessitate some consideration as to how such concessions should in future bo granted. ■lt present there is a Natiye Land Act passed almost every year. Since 1885 there have been fifty Acts passed dealing with native lands. Many of thorn' arc Statutes made ge»eral in force, but which are really meant to give reliet to private persons in their dealings with Maoris. I£ any relief that was to be granted to any individual was given in a private or personal Act, with a careful and elaborate recital of all the facts, such recital being certified to by a judge of the Supreme Court, as ii the case of a ; Private Estate Bill, there would be a great gain. First, the Native Land Acts would not be disligured by numerous provisions which are only of a casual or personal character, and which make the interpretation of our Native Land Laws at present almost impossible, and second, the whole Parliament would have such a knowledge of the relief that was being granted and to whom it was being granted, that no Bill would pass without careful consideration. If such a system had been in vogue when the various Amending Acts of 1895, 1890, 1901 and 1902 were passed, I am of opinion that no legislation affecting native reserves m Taranaki would haye been passed by Parliament.