NATIVE LAND COURT, CAM-

Waikato Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2295, 26 March 1887, Page 2

NATIVE LAND COURT, CAM-

BRIDGE. The court resumed on Thursday morning, having adjourned on Wednesday afternoon by request of Hori Wirihana, to enable the natives to discuss matters, and endeavour to arrive at a settlement agreeable to all parties concerned. Mr McDonald gave particulars of the meeting held on the previous evening, and pointed out that Hori Wirihana, who had asked for the adjournment, was not present, and that Piripi Whanatangi, who had an important interest in the block, was also away, so there was virtually nothing done. He then applied to the court to proceed with the case, and said he believed it would be settled in less than a week. The Ngatihaua, who he represented, were very anxious that the present court should adjudicate upon it, and were so satisfied with the manner in which the judges, Messrs O'Brien and Williams, had conducted the business, and the careful attention they had bestowed upon the case, that they would use every endeavour to shorten the proceedings, and bring matters to a successful issue if the court would proceed with it. Mr Frazer said he attended the meeting held on the previous evening with a view to help the subdivision, but he found there were only two and a half interests personally represented, and that Mr McDonald had made up his mind not to arrive at a settlement. The Court: We have heard sufficient of the meeting. Let us go on with the case. Mr Frazer: With regard to Mr McDonald's application, I feel sure the case would last a much longer time than the present court could give to it. Mr James Mackay said he must again press the court to adjourn both the Puahoe and Pukekura cases. A meeting had been held, of which Mr McDonald had given them a very lengthy occount, which could be summed up in the following words " We did nothing." As the court and he differed on a point of law he would draw attention to section 28 of the Native Lands Court Act, 1880, which was as follows:—" If during a hearing on partition it appear to the court that the title to the land is involved in any question not within the jurisdiction of the court to dispose of, the court may, if of opinion that partition cannot be had without prejudice to the interests of parties, dismiss the case or adjourn the further hearing until such question has been disposed of by a court; of competent jurisdiction." His clients felt aggrieved at the decision come to in the Ncratiapakuara case, and he felt strengthened in the course he was pursueing by what fell from the court itself, viz. that orders would not be made for three months. Under section 28 the court could adjourn until the question had been tried by a competent tribunal. He there-

fore pressed for an adjournment in order to ascertain who in right and who wrong. His clients had acted righteously and rightly in acquiring their interest in the land, and he trusted the court would not allow them to be fleeced and black-mailed by the actions of unscrupulous individuals. Hori Wiribana gave his reason for not attending the meeting, and said he did not object to an adjournment. The Court asked Mr Mackay how long he wished the adjournment to be, to which he replied, one month. Mr McDonald said, in case the court decided to adjourn, he would ask that his costs (£ls), which he had paid into court be returned to him, and that Mr Mackay be called upon to pay them, on the grounds that the court met by the direct application of the representatives of Mr Walker. Mr Mackuy: You have your land awarded you ! Mr McDonald continuing said, not one of his clients had applied. INovv, the case having proceeded a certain length, Mr Walker's agent finds it does not suit him to go on. Ho (Mr McDonald) had been obliged to pay his £1 per day, and now he found that it was to be thrown away by the course taken. (One of the judges, No ! no !) On those grounds it was hard that those people who were quiescent should be dragged here, and then for it to be adjourned while Mr Walker took proceedings in another court. Mr Mackay rose to reply, but the court refusing the application of Mr McDonald, he refrained from doing so. The Court then announced its intention to adjourn until April 25th, but before doing so would make an order to those members of the Ngatihaua tribe, whose names appear in the original certificate of the Puahoe block, for the balance of that block which had not been awarded to the Ngatiapakuara. Mr Frazer gave notice that on the court resuming, he should apply for a partition in severalty for each of his native clients. Mr Mackay agreed to give notice to all interested parties if he could not complete the proceedings in the other court in time for this one to resume at the appointed time. The Court then adjourned to April 25th.