WAITARA LAND CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 July 1916, Page 7

WAITARA LAND CASE.

NATIVES DISPUTE OWNERSHIP. JUDGMENT FOR OCCUPIER. At the May sittings of the Supreme Court at Xew Plymouth, the action in winch Henarc Hautoro Kawa and others claimed from John Cameron possession of a, section of land at Waitara West, and tor an injunction, was heard by Mr. Justice lulwards. whose written judgment for defendant is now to hand. Mr. D Mutclien appeared for the plaintilt's, and Mr. A 11. Johnstone (instructed by Mr. .' li. Stead) for the defendant. His Honor stated that apart from the affirmative defence the plaintiffs had proved all that was necessary to entitle them to judgment. On the other hand, the defendant had proved his possession of the land as alleged by him. To meet this defence, counsel for the plaintiff called at the trial a Maori witness, ,vho deposed that lie applied to the defendant for payment of rent in respect of that land, ami that the defendant then paid him os as a year's rent, alleging that no more was then due. The same witness deposed that two years later, upon a similar application, the defendant paid to him the further sum of 10s in respect of such rent. The defendant denied the first payment alleged by Pnnvipi. but admitted the second payment of 10s, but not for rent. The best explanation that he could give was that Maoris often asked him for money, that Puinipi asked for 10s, and that he gave it to him, having no reason for doing so except Pumipi's request It was not necessary to ce'ue to any definite conclusion as to this question of fact, as it was clear that even if Pumipi's evidence was accepted without qualification it was iiisullieieiit to support the plaintiff's ease. The defendant's possession of the land began in 1ST!), and had continued without interruption up to the time when this action was begun. The period of limitation had Ihcreforr expired several years before the payments alleged, by il'umipi were made. The law was quite clear that in such case no subsequent acknowledgment of title, or payment of rent would revive the title, which had been extinguished by operation of the statute. Defendant is entitled to judgment and (as the practice is as a rule to regard legal merit) only to costs on the lowest scale.''