THE TAUPO-NUI-ATIA CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2515, 23 August 1888, Page 2

THE TAUPO-NUI-ATIA CASE.

♦ [BY TKLKGRAFH—OWN COKHK.SI'OVnfiNT. i Auckland, Wednesday. At the Supreme Court in baud) to-day an important native lauds case was heard, j Taonui Hikaka and cither members of the Ngatiinaniapoto tribe v. W. S. McDonald 3 and David Scannell. Mr K. Hesketh apl peared for plaintiffs, and Mr Button for 3 defendants. Tho plaintiffs applied for a writ of prohibition to issue to the defend- ' ants respectively, commanding each of them t to abstain from signing or issuing any 5 orders or certificates of title to any person or persons whomsoever of the block of land 5 called Taupo nni-atia, or portions of the r said block. The statement of claims set out that the plaintiff and other members ' of the Ngatiinaniapoto tribe were interested / as native owners in a block land in the J King Country containing more than 1,000,000 acres, and known by the name of Tauponuiatia. Notice was gazetted Decemf ber, ISSS, that the native title to this block „ of land would ba investigated at tho Native Land Court to be held at Taupn on e January 14th, ISBH. As plaintiff's tribe were largely interested in tho land in question, the plaintiff chief was deputed to attend

Court as their represenative. The Court opened on the day gazetted, before Messrs Brookfield and Scannell as judges, and Nikorima Poutaiara as assessor, the first named being the presiding judge. The plaintiff chief was not able to attend the Court on the day in question, as he had to attend a sitting of the K.M. Court in Cambridge at that date. Ha telegraphed asking that the hearing of the case might be postponed until his arriva l . When, however, ho did arrive, lie found that the block had been awarded to 142 hapns, including plaintiff's. The awards had been made on January 22nd, 18s(j, and then the court was adjourned on the 27th January, l>Sßli. On the latter da to plaintiffs attended and applied for the case to be ro-opened to enable them to bring forward their claim, but the application was refused, the presiding judge informing thern that when the case was before the court the Ngatilnaniapoto, as a tribe, had not preferred any claim. A subsequent sitting of the Court was held, at which applications for sub divisions were heard. The following were the grounds on which the present application was rested :—l. That the investigation of the Native Land Court of the title to the block in question was never completed, and that no sub-di vision of the block could therefore be made. 2. That no applications for the sub-division of the said block should have been heard by the said Court until the same had been duly gazetted. 3. That the sitting of the Native Land Court appointed for the investigation of the said title to the said block lapsed on the 30th September, 188G, before the said titlo had been ascertained. The case occupied all day, and is still unlinished.