The Lyttelton Times. December 13, 1851.

Lyttelton Times, Volume I, Issue 49, 13 December 1851, Page 5

The Lyttelton Times. December 13, 1851.

■~* Our readers may remember that a letter appeared in our columns on the 22ud. ult.,from Mr. Dampier, in reference to a case which had been tried before the Magistrates at Christchurch, involving the important question of the validity of the title which landpurchasers can obtain from the Canterbury Association. Mr. Dampier, it appears, bought a section of land at one of the public auction sales of town land : he had poid the required deposit, but refused to pay the remaining partof the price until the Association should complete its contract by executing a valid form of conveyance : he declined to acceptthe form of conveyance offered by the Association, and submitted a form which he had I prepared himself, but which Mr. Godley ob-

jected to execute on the ground that it contained matter which " he was not bound or empowered to admit." Mr. Godley proceeded against Mr. Dampier before the Magistrates, and recovered the debt. The defendant refused to pay, and a distress-warrant was issued. An injunction was then moved for in the Supreme Court at Wellington to restrain the Association from further prosecuting the judgment of the Magistrates. A Mr. Ferris, who appears to have taken the same view of the case as Mr. Dampier, and who was proceeded against in a similar manner, was the nominal plaintiff before the Supreme Court at Wellington. In the letter to which we have referred, Mr. Dampier, however, states his legal opinion on the case at issue, with all the overweening confidence in his own judgment, and the unlimited contempt for those who differed from him, which are generally conjoined with determined and persevering wrong-headedness.

We print to-day from the columns of the Wellington Spectator the report of the proceedings in the Supreme Court. The charge delivered by Mr. Justice Chapman, is the only answer which Mr. Dampier's letter requires; and we beg our readers will take the trouble to read those two documents side by side. Nothing more important than this judgment of the Supreme Court has occurred since our arrival in the colony. The landpurchases will well remember that upon no point was greater stress laid, as an inducement to purchase land from the Association, than upon this, that the Association had it in their power to give the colonists a good and complete title to their land, without hindrance or delay of any kind whatsoever. And it was of the more importance to urge this point, because the confusion and difficulties which surrounded the question of title to land in New Zealand had become a matter of unfortunate notoriety in England. If, then, upon landing in the colony, the settlers had found that the promises of the Association could not be fulfilled, the Association would have been guilty of a gross breach of faith, and a cruel fraud would have been practised on those who had purchased land. Now the point raised by Mr. Dampier seems to question the whole power of the Association to give any title at all. For he urged that because the Association are bound by their Act of Parliament to pay to the Crown one sixth of the price of the land, the purchaser's title would not be valid unless that condition were fulfilled : he therefore required that the form of conveyance should state that such condition had been fulfilled. Mr. Justice Chapman shews at once that this is an impossible condition; for the money cannot he paid to the Crown until it has been received from the purchaser. But if the purchaser refuses to pay the purchase money until he can get a conveyance stating that the sixth part of that purchase-money has been paid to the Crown, of course he can never get a title at all. The point settled by Mr. Justice Chapman's judgment appears to be this—that the title of the purchaser to the soil is in no way affected by the Association's performance or non-performance of its own obligations. No matter how it may mis-spend its funds, violate its charter, break the Act of Parliament, in respect to its own obligations, the title it has once given to the purchaser is notwithstanding- good, and no man can deprive him of his inheritance. The Judge's words ought to be learned by every Canterbury colonist. " I can see no room for doubt that a grant or conveyance in fee simple to a purchaser, executed as prescribed by the Act, affords to sucJipurchaser as perfect and indefeasible a title to the land it purports to convey, as any species of assurance knoion to the law of the land." : Whilst alluding to Mr. Dampier's letter we cannot avoid calling to mind the sarcasm.

with which it winds up, aimed at the " muchboasted Society of Land-Purchasers," because they had neglected to investigate this important question of the title to their lands. The land purchasers have no reason to be ashamed of their silence ; it may possibly have arisen from their having taken the same view of the question as " our excellent Judge of the Supreme Court." It is not always a public duty to incur the expense and trouble of going to law to solve every doubt which may be started by an ingenious lawyer. After all, example is better than precept. The prominent fact is that Mr. Dampier is a purchaser of land himself. Would he buy land if he did not believe that a good title could be given ?—Would he buy land if he believed that the title depended on the manner in which the Association disposed of the money?—lf the public attach any weight to Mr. Dampier's opinion, they will perhaps be satisfied to gather from his actions that the title is good, without caring to.aziswer his arguments that is bad.

The brief summary we are able to give of the English News contains one announcement which will give universal satisfaction. The nefarious attempt to saddle our revenues with a debt has failed. For this we have to thank the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Gladstone ; but the danger is not past. Lord Grey only postponed the clauses because it was too late in the Session to carry them through the Houses, against an opposition promised at every stage. The Minister gave way ungracefully, as usual; recording his conviction that the successful opposition had inflicted an injury upon New Zealand, If we do not now speak out, we shall yet be saddled with this debt. A ministry can carry any colonial question it pleases ; and if city influence and political support are to be gained, they will be purchased at the expence of this colony. We have, however, breathing time—time to send home our steady, unflinching determination, that, come what may, we will never pay this debt.

Mr. Deans's friends met on Wednesday at Christehurch at the White Hart Inn, and on Thursday at Lyttelton at the Mitre, to bid him farewell, before leaving the settlement upon a visit to his native land; as is customary with Englishmen in all such cases, these meetings took place round well supplied dinner-tables; and many a kind wish for the prosperous voyage and speedy return of the honoured guest was expressed over the glass of genial wine. Mr. Deans, in responding, said he hoped lie should be back amongst us again,—a sentiment which was cordially cheered by the company, and in which all our readers will join. Mr. Theodore Williams presided at Christchurch, and Mr. Godley took the chair at Lyttelton. The usual toasts were drunk. We regret that want of space compels us to omit a report of the speeches which were made.