ALLEGED DUMMY LEASEHOLDERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 78, 1 April 1905, Page 6

ALLEGED DUMMY LEASEHOLDERS.

CROWN LAND LEASES FORFEITED. I IMPROVEMENT CLAUSES UNFULFELLED. The Auckland Crown Lands Board at a special meeting yesterday confirmed a resolution to forfeit four sections of land in the Whangapa district. The sections were the following:—Section 2, Block 7, comprising 1789 acres, leased to R. S. Tuck on December 23, 1901; section 2, Block 10, containing 450 acres, leased to J. T. Tuck on December 23, 1901; section 3, Black 10, containing 1077 acres, leased to D. J. McLeod on December 23, 1901; and section 73, Block 7, containing 634 acres, leased to John Wiseman on May 23, 1903. The leaseholders had been informed of the proposed forfeiture, but none of them attended the meeting to object. A letter, however, was received from 1 Messrs Hcsketh and Richmond, solicitors for Messrs R. S. Tuck, J. T. Tuck, and D. J. McLeod, stating that the timber cutting had been delayed for want of a mill in the district. When this could be done the othe.* improvements stipulated would be proceeded with. They asked fear a further extension of time.

In discussion the Commissioner, Mr Mackenzie, said the holders in question had taken up the land under occupation with right of purchase conditions, for settlement purposes, and it was their (?'"<*.• to settle on it and carry out the "'"' *nted improvements. The arrears

-■. improvements or rent were as follows.—Mr McLeod £134 12/6, Mr Wiseman £25 15/, Mr J. T. Tuck £184, and Mr R S. Tuck £223 12/11. These were evidently not cases of hard-up genuine settlers earnestly desiring to carry out the conditions of lease, in which cases the Board was in the habit of showing every consideration. But Messrs Tuck, he was informed, were mill people of Hawke's Bay, and the sole purpose of these and the other holders in taking up the leases appeared to be the getting of the timber, and not settlement. He saw no reason why the leases should not be forfeited.

Mr Shannoii, the ranger, said he could find no improvements effected, but on Messrs Tuck's land there was a quantity of felled katui and white pine bearing the Mitchelson Timber Co.'s brand. The necessary improvements could have been effected without the removal of this timber. Mr McLeod was manager for the Mitchelson Timber Co.'s Herekino mill. Mr Wiseman bad expressed regret at the prospect of forfeiture, as he thought in a year or two he would have been able to settle on it.

Mr H. J. Greenslade asked if the Mitchelson Timber Co. had obtained the Board's permission to remove timber. The Commissioner said they had not done so, but it was not an arrangeto which the Board would have objected if the necessary improvements had been proceeding. He did not suppose the timber company considered they were doing anything they were not entitled to do. In actual fact, however, they were trespassers. Mr Greenslade complimented the Commissioner on his courage and zeal in this matter, and said that steps were imperatively necessary to prevent dummy settlers from acquiring leases of land merely to denude it of the timber, to the disappointment of bona fide settlers whom they defeated at the ballot. He agreed with the Commissioner, however, that the Mitchelson Timber Co. had acted in entirely good faith in the matter.

Messrs Harris, Armstrong and Renshaw spoke to a similar effect, and a motion to forfeit the leases was carried unanimously.

The Commissioner said there were other forfeitures pending. Replying to Mr Greenslade the Commissioner said the question of further proceedings in the cases just dealt with would rest between himself and the Minister. He had, however, already ordered the seizure of the cut timber and the prevention of further cutting. Mr Harris considered that it might be desirable to enforce the penalties provided for the making of false declaration..

Further action was deferred