The Press. MONDAY, JULY 17, 1876.

Press, Volume XXVI, Issue 3391, 17 July 1876, Page 2

The Press. MONDAY, JULY 17, 1876.

An extraordinary story comes to ua from the Provincial G-overameufc offices. Wβ cannot vouch for the truth of it; but it ie of bo strange a character that it certainly requires, we think, official eorrob oration or denial. The facts, as told to ua, areas follows : —When what was called the " Scaly ecandal" (which our readers doubtless remember) waa brought to an end after a fashion only partially satisfactory, one of the conditions agreed to by Mr Sealey was that he should give up the piece of land in dispute. - On this being done, it was found, as we are iufonned, that two small pieces of land were left unpurchased within certain boundaries. In accordance with the Waste Lmds Regulations these two pieces, containing each less than twenty acres, were put up to public auction in the usual way. The Hon Mr Richardson, the winner of the larger section in the dispute with Mr Sealey, made a bid, by hie agents, in the usual manner for the two small sections. It appears that Mr Sealey, whether from a desire to purchase them for himself, or from feelings of annoyance at having been the loser in the former case, or from some other cause, also became a bidder, and ran Mr Richardson up from his original bid of £2 per acre to £9. So far there does not seem to be anything different from ordinary occurrences of a similar nature at laud sales. The curious part of the business ie that the Provincial Government have, if our information is correct, refunded to the Ron Mr Richardson the difference between his first bid and his last. That is, after he bad agreed to pay £9 per acre for the laud in the ordinary way, as laid down in the Waste Lands Regulations, they have returned him £7 per acre; thus letting him have the land at the up«|| price, as it no auction eale had been neld at all. We confess that, after trying to ascertain the right which the Government poseess to make this extraordinary bargaiu, we are obliged to give up the attempt. We have heard one reason given for their action, namely, that Mr Richardson bad originally " in- " tended" to include these two small pieces of laud in his application for the larger section, on the day when Mr Sealey stepped in so suddenly and took away the latter from him, and that therefore he was in equity entitled to be replaced in the same position as if the laches of Mr Sealey bad never oecmred.. The reason seems to us to be frivolous. For in the first place the Government under the circumstances had no right to look at the equity of the case at all, but only at tho. strict legal poditiju of it. The General Assembly might consider it on a basis of equity; the Provincial Government should have been guided by strict law. And the law, so far as we know, makes no provision whatever for such a refund as the one in question. Secondly, as to Mr Richardson's " intention," we may remark tljafc in the first case with Mr Sealey the latter gentleman

broughtforward as one of his arguments an alleged " intention "to apply for the land, but we do not find that the intention was regarded as worth anything. We cannot say more upon this matter at present, because we should like first to hear an authoritative statement about it. The sum of money in question ie, we understand, something over £200. It is not a very large amount in itself, but there is a most important principle involved with it, namely, the right of the Superintendent to contravene the Waste Lande Regulations and to pay out of the public Treasury moneys unauthorised by law. There are one or two collateral issues, such as for instance the position of the Superintendent after having made a refund such as we have spoken of, and the position of the Timaru and Gladstone Board of Works with reference to it. We only hint at these at present, for we think that the public ought to receive the fullest information as to the truth or otherwise of the story.