Potae v. Arthur.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 464, 7 June 1890, Page 3

Potae v. Arthur.

At the Auckland Supreme Court on Friday, May 30, the case Arapeta Potae v. A- C, Arthur came on again, the following report being from the N.Z. HeraldMr Heaketh moved, on summons, to set aside writ, etc., in this action. Mr Bees, instructed by Mr James Russel, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hesketh for the defendant. The application was made under an Act patted last session, to stay proceeding until the question of an alienatton of certain native landshad been dealt with by the commissioner, whoso duty it was to inquire into the circumstances, and ascertain whether the alienation could be registered. The application to have the matter inquired into by the comtnisaioner waa bona fide, and was made before the writ was iaeued. Hie Honor Baid there waa a dispute between plaintiff and defendant as to the validity of certain proceedings. The defendant applied to the commissioner to decide this dispute, and the Slaintiff a.ked the Supreme Cour, to o so, The question was, whether the prior application ahuld not have effect. Mr Bees contended that there was nothing in the statute taking from a subject the right to come before the Supreme Court. He contenoed that this was not a cnee for the Commissioner to deal with. Hie Honor stii he was In this difficulty. The Commissioner had all the powers of a Judge in the Supreme Court—in fact, was a Judge, and it be should comply with Mr Rees’s views, the Commissioner might also inquire into it, and if they should arrive st different decisions, what would be the result? Mr Bees said ihe Commiwioner, as such, would not be inquiring as a judge of the Supreme Court—he Would meiely be acting on the powers conferred on him by the statute, After bearing further argument, His Honor eaid he was, much against his will, obliged to hold that he must himself try the case in the Supreme Court, as he had uo power to transfer it tn the Commissioner, The motion must therefore ba dismissed. A fortvigbt was allowed fur filk g a defence, and the case waa Mt down for trial in Amjmi, Mr Beat asked tor costs, and Wai allowed £2 i. j ,