THE PUKEKURA AND PUAHOE CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1982, 21 March 1885, Page 3

THE PUKEKURA AND PUAHOE CASE.

AT tho Supreme Court, Auckland, on Wednesday, before Mr Justice Gillie^, argument was heaid in the case* Te Raihi and dthen v. G rice and others and PenoUna and others v. Gnco and otheis. Mi H. BHI (Crown Piosecutor, Wellington), Mr J. M. Alexander, and Mr W. McGregor H.iy (of Hamilton) appeared foi tho plaintiffs ; Mr E. Hesketh appeared for Messrs Grice and Benn and ono of the native defendants ; the other native defendants did not appear by counsel. At the opening "f the «« (l0 afc fcll ° I<lßt ClV|l «.PHsion«, Mr Hudson Williamson (Crown Prosecutor) -aid he hud been instructed to appear on behalf of the Attorney Grnpial (also a p.uty to the suit), and state th.it it was his intention to leave the matter to the decision of the court, so th.it the Crow n might remain neutral .is to the dispute bo tween the parties. A defence h.id boon hied to th.it effect, and stating further that the Attorney-General would submit himself to tho court accordingly. After heaiing the evidence the ca«e \kii adjourned till after tho vacation, in ordci that the Argument of counsel might bo heard. The c.ise i-> a very important one, for tho Crown grants of two large and valuable blocks of land in Wnikato »re attacked. The decision will be looked to with mteicst by many landowners in Waiknto. The application is that the Cum n grants be declared null and void, and for injunction. The following are the particulars of the cases :— Defendants (Messis Grice and Bonn) are tho proprietors of tho le-v-es '>' the Pukekura and Puahoe Blocks, Waikato, containing about 17,000 acre*. It appears that in November, 1808, the Native Land* Court H.it and investigated the titles of these two blocks, and made orders for certificates to be issued to ton natives in c icli block. After these had been a«cert.unrd Messrs Grice and Bonn took leases of the blocks which wen' signed by tho natives who had been found by tht> Court to be entitled. In November, 18W, the Native L.uidsConit sat a Ram, and undid .ill that had been done by tho Conit of 18(iS, and made fresh ordeis and certificates. Upon discovering this, Messrs. Grico and Benn wrote to tlieCliief Judge, asking why these fiesh orders had been made. He replied that it was owing to a blunder of tho Court of ISGS New leases were- obtained, bur. it happened that one of the mines had left tho distiict, and he did not sign thi' new lease of Pukeknr.i until about two years aftei tho other nine hid «iened it. Mossi.-, Gnce :uid Kran have been holding 1 under tin- second leases, and have spent about £10,000 m impi o\ oinonts. These leases aie attacked on the ground th.it the proceedidgs of the conit m 18<>8 was valid, and could not be annulled by the sitting of the court in 18<> ( ) ; and that as tho Crown want is issued upon the certiffcate of 1869, and as the court h.id no power to make that ceitih'cate, both tho certificate and Crown grant arc void ; and as the second leases are upon thene second certificates, the leases are void. It is also alleged that the leases (mould have been signed by all, whereas the tenth man signed two years after the nine signed. By the order of 1868, tho couit ordeied that tho ten whose names were on the certificates were to hold in trust for seventeen who->e names were on tho bark. In the order of liM'J nothing is said about the trust or the seventeen. It is said that the couit of ISiiS had no power to make orders that tho ten should be trustees, and therefore these oiders were bad, and hence the necessity for the sitting of the court m 18(»!), to nuke oiders which weie valid. Plaintiffs apply that the Crown grant be declared null and void, mid that the lease be set aside. The Attorney-General js made a defendant in the svetion as representing the Crown. Mr Bell's addrebs was. an exhaustive one, and lasted three hours. Towards its conclusion the question of the costs of the exso was i of erred to, Mi Bell contending that Messrs Gricc and Benn should bear them. His Honour naid it appeared to him that the down should pay the costs; for, accoiding to the plaintihV contention, it \vo» tho action of tlu officers of the Crown which had biought iiljout all the trouble. The court adjourned at three o'clock. The healing was resumed on J hursdav, w lien theargument of counsel w .is coutinued. Mr Hesketh addressed the couit. He began at half-past eleven and concluded at four p.m., an addiess of three hours and ahalf. The main points advanced by him were as follows : - First: The investigation of 1808 was open to objection under the following giounds . — First, the judgment of the court found the tribe entitled, and without oaying the number of members of the tribe, it ordeied a ceitihcate to issue to 27 by name, the couit not having power to issue to more than 10, The order for the certificate when issued was to 10 only. The act requited that .til the pei xons found entitled should consent to a certificate to 10 befoio the certificate was wsued, and it wus not shown that they did consent. The only evidence of any consent was a letter produced signed by 15 persons, some of whom only were those found by the judgment of the Court to be entitled. This consent was bad, because tiio law requires Ml to consent to ten having a certificate. The law requires all tho persons entitled over ten to bo registered in the Native Land Court, and this was never done. Second: That it was competent for the Court to cancel or niter the reports which had been m.idem 1S<!8 as to restrictions and conditions, and these were altered by a further leport at the Court of 18G9, which recommended that tho land should be made inalienable. Th.it it w.is open for the Government to accept any of these report^, and the Governor thought fit to accept the last report, which recommended the land being granted and made inalienable. Third: That ,a Crown giant can issue on a certificate under section 17 of tho Act of 18<>7, which section did not repeal section 40 of tho Native Land Act of 18<5.">, which gives a general power to is-nc Crown grants and certificates. Fourth . That tho grant that hud issued was good and valid, although its ante- vesting datt was tho date of the ordei of the second Court which sat in 1801), instead of itIwing the date of the order ol the first Court in 1808, and notwithstanding that the restriction in th« grant did not exactly tally with the restric tion in section 17 of the act. Fifth : Thai the relief prayed for could not be granted, inasmuch as the court must have the wholi of the parties interested or their represent* tives before it in order to cancel the Crowi grant and the proceedings of the court ii 18(»!) and the defendant's leases. That sue cesnors ought to have been appointed foi the five legistoied owners who have died and those successors then made plaintiffs n the action. Tho representatives of thesi peisons are as u.uch interested in the actioi as any of the plaintiffs, and, for anythnif that he knew, they might wish the Crowi grant to bo maintained, and therefore nngh to have been before tho couit. Tho actioi should have been bruupht by the u-gistem owners against the ton grantees, and the dr fendants, Gricu and Beun, ought not V have been brought to the court, and put t< immense expense, especially now when th validity of their leasei wan admitted. Th Government and the Government alon ought to have defended this action iiibteai of standing by and leaving those whohav acted upon the proceedings of the Nativ Land Couit to fight, at the cost of hundred of pounds, the consequences of blunders i thut court. The Court adjourned at four o'clock.Herald.

[»Y TKLLCKU'H.— OWN CORKES«I\mST.] AUCKLAND, l'liday. On tho court iimnjj to-dny, Mr Bell replied briefly to Mr Hcskcth'B avKiimPiitM, und in doing ho to Roino oxtent panned over tho ground which ho had previously ti a versed. Ho urged in conclusion tlmt, liowovor the cane went, coats should not be f?i»Gii as .if^aln-t pl.tintiffn. His Honour intimated thnt as tho matter was of considerablu importance lie would tike tune to consider lum docision, winch would probably bo delivered at tho next sitting of the court on the 15th Apnl.