NATIVE APPELATE COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 81878, 1 November 1906, Page 2

NATIVE APPELATE COURT.

On Monday the Native Court, consisting of the President and Judge MaeCormic, delivered judgment on lite appeal of C. N. Ruwe, of Urenui, against the decision of the Native -Land Court refusing probate of the will of Eraia Ngamuka, deceased. Eraia Ngamuka made his will on the loth October, 19032 in favour of Mr Rowe, Hie witnesses being Mr J. E. Wilson (who acted as Mr Rowe's solicitor in preparing the will) and Mi John Adams, of l'e Roti, a licensed interpreter. On the death of Eraia, Mr Rowc made application to the Native Land Court for probate, the the application being opposed by ceitain natives, who claimed to be entitled to succeed to the land affected

by the will. The Native Land Court refused probate of the will., and against this refusal Mr Rowe appealed to the Native Appellate Court. On the hearing of the appeal Mr J. E. Wilson (Messrs Wilson and Grey) appeared for the appellant and Mr Damon, Native Agent, for the respondents. The grounds of objection to probate were as follows:—(1Undue influence; (2) that the testator had not a disposing mind; (3) that he did not know the contents of the will; (4) that the witnesses to the

will (Mr Wilson and Mr Adams) W eie instructed and employed by the beneliciary; (5) that one. uf the witnesses (Mr Wilson) did not understand the Maori language. A further objection, which was abandoned at the hearing, was that there was a discrepancy between the dates in the English and Maori copies of the will, the former being dated 10th October, 1903, and the latter 10th November, 1903. In giving judgment, the Appellate. Court dealt with the objections seriatim. The Court found with reference to the first objection that there was nothing'hi ihe case to suggest thai coercion was employed nor

any circumstances from which coercion might reasonably be inferred. On thoi second objection the Court found there was nothing to suggest that the testator was insane or imbecile and that it, mum deal with the case as thai of a testator in pos-es-ion of his mental faculties and acting under no compulsion. As 10 the third objection the only person present who had such a knowledge of ihe Maori language as to enable him to depose t) the testator's knowledge of the con tents of the will was Mr Adams, the

interpreter, who had sworn that he interpreted the will to the testator, ~vho assenied thereto. In order to reject this testimony the Court must as-ume either thai the interpreter, who was licensed, was incompetent, or that be'ng competent he had fraudiiliintlv misrepre.-eneid Ihe contents of Ihe will, and ihe Judges stated (hat l!|-y, would be justified in neither assumption, The Courl did not consider the objection called for special comment, though had there been rircunrtances connecled with the will such as to justify a suspicion T mala fides the fact that th"o attesting witnesses were employed by the bf-M'fic'ary would have had considerable weight,

The. Court ordered thai the will he referred back to the Nr,-;ive Land Ctup't widi a direction lo grant probate of _ the will to Charles Nicholas Rowe with such limitation (if any) as may be found necessary in exerce'so of the power conferred by Section 4O of "The Native Land Court Act, io>|,"