THE NEW ZEALANG NATIVE LAND SETTLEMENT COMPANY. [BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Wednesday.

Waikato Times, Volume XXII, Issue 1839, 19 April 1884, Page 2

THE NEW ZEALANG NATIVE LAND SETTLEMENT COMPANY. [BY TELEGRAPH.— PRESS ASSOCIATION.] Wellington, Wednesday.

Judgment wasgiveii by Judge Richmond at the Supreme Court to-day in the case of WiTeßuke and others v. the New Zealand Native Land Settlement Company. The relief asked was that the Court would order the company to give up the memorandum of transfer in this case to be conceited, the plaintiff undertaking to repay the cash advance of £900. The ground now relied upon by the plaintiff was that the transaction was effected by two deeds, and was not a sale within the meaning of the 9th Section of " The Native Lind Act, 1883." His Honor was of opinion that tho transaction was truly a sale, and the property passed absolutely to the company. The left no ground to the plaintiff save that which was afforded by the character of the proceedings in the Native Lands Court. His Honor was certiinly of opinion that the suppression of the deed of covenant was a most improper act, though, probably, nothing worse than an error of judgment. The jury had negatived the existence of the actual fraud in the proceedings. The true character of the transaction between the natives and the company must be a matter of public notoriety, and the ignorance of the Judge of the Native Lands Court was, m all probability, merely official. It would be going a great deal too far to say that the improper conduct of the company's agents constituted a sufficient ground for the cancellation of the deed of conveyance. The jury had negatived all fraud, in the moans by which that conveyance! was obtained. The transaction itself must be taken, and it appeared to be a fair one. The wrong done was simple in the mole by which the assent of the Native Lands Couit had been obtained, and in that wrong the plaintiffe themBel\es were participators. So far as Plh Honour couM jiulge, the transaction, had it been full}' disclosed, w.is entitled to lecehe the approval of the Native Land (Joint. The case, therefore, was certainly not one for the inteifeience of the Court by the cancellation of the deed. It appeared that the Native Lands Court was not functua offico, and it might not bo too late for a plan tiff to apply for a recession of the oidor which had been made, and that was their appropriate remedy, and the only remedy under the circumstances. There was a ground to which he had not yet adveited, on which it was quite plain that the plaintiffs could not in any caso be entitled to present judgment in their favour. The former co-owners with the plaintiffs had not be made parties to this suit, and it would be obviously impossible to make a decree in favour of the plaintiffs without bringing these persons before the Court. The plaintiffs' motion was therefore refused with costs.