NATIVE LAND COURT AT RAGLAN.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 2990, 12 September 1891, Page 2

NATIVE LAND COURT AT RAGLAN.

Tun Native Lnd Court (iiiishrjd its session on Tiiiirslay S";it'j!iiljcr ,'Srd, anil adjourned ■'»■ ilt , '. During its sitting, besides suoors.ii<m cases, it has subdivided tho !IO,:SUO acres of To Akau block into'-'i Allotments. In proceeding to sub-iliviile, tin: l-ourt first nia.lo live iinjor division !ind thenatjain partitioned theso into as many portions as were asked for, Xos. -, •'! and -1 of these major sub-Jivi.sions wei'n partitioned by agreement of tho natives nmong themselves, and the Court had merely to make the orders on the divisions as agreed upon. The shires also were apportioned on these in a similar manner, but in major sub ■ division .") (tho Raglan end) and 1 (the Waikato end) much disagreement arose, and many cases came betoro the Court for adjudication in the orlinary mannur. l'"tually, after hearing iiiuuli evidence, the Court; gave its decisions, if not to tho satisfaction of all.it is believed to that of the majority ; the disatislied being tho ultra-greedy. Tin. , Court had no easy tisk before it in consequence of tho absence of any wcll-ddinel rules for the partition of land of the character of Te Akau it being lanl over which native title had been extinguished by confiscation, proclaimed Crown Lands and then returned to tho natives who wero loyal, by the Compensation Court. After the of the Compensation Court, the land was Crown granted to the people found to be e:iliti.-il by the Court and it was specially mentioned in tho Grant t hat the interests of the natives were not equal. It can be imagined that inequality once declared every native would contend that his particular interest was the one which should be increased above the average, whilst none would agree that theirs should be reduced to make room for the increase of others. There wero many other disturbing elements, such as the claim, made by those who had part of their laud confiscated, to bo awarded the balance to themselves alone to the exchiS' ion of grantees, who could not prove ownership on the laud left, but who had a right through the grant, and in eomo instances had also suffered from couiiscation. The subject was, as said difficult, to deal with.