RENT OF CROWN LANDS.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 8071, 14 January 1892, Page 3

RENT OF CROWN LANDS.

At the Resident Magistrate's Court, Chrialchurch, yesterday, before Mr R. Beetham, R.M., Duncan Matheson was charged thai being the holder of Run 92, he had failed to pay the rent when due, and it wae sought to obtain an order to enable the Land Biard to recover the statutory Pβ* nalty of £1 per diem for., the pariod in which he had made default. The defendant did not appear. Mr Martitt who appeared for the Land Board, said that the application wae made under the Land Act 1886, sec. 18a The ran hftl been held by defendant's brother, Mr D. Q. Matheson, at a rental of £56 per annum, but was transferred to defendant in August, 1891. The rent was due on September Itt. Shortly after this a correspondence began, in which defendant repeatedly asked for a reduction in rent on account of the expense occasioned by rabbits. This the Board could hot grant, and after a time, the rent remaining unpaid, Mr Martin wrote asking for payment of it and also of the penalty. Afterwards Mr D. G. Matheeon, who acted as agent for defendant, called end asked lor bo mc concession. Mr Martin referred him to the Chief Surveyor. Oa November 14th Mr D. O. Matheeon called and mid the rent overdue. On December 9th, Mr Martin, under instructions, wrote demanding £74, being the penalty at the rate of £1 per day for the period from September lafc t« November 14th. To this cowmmtemm no answer had beea received, heoce the pr#sent proceedinga. Mr Beetham eaid the_Ao* provided that the penalty should be added to the rent. Was it not, therefore, recoverable under civil process f Mr Martin Mtd until the penalty had been fixed it cawa not be distrained for as the rent could. The Act did not state how the penalty should be recovered, but if the order were made it would be recoverable ander the Penalties Act 1888, Mr Beetham said he wee doubtful as to his jurisdiction. Sappoetog he was to impose a penalty, the defaalft would entail imprisonment. Mr Martia— The defendant could appeal. If the had not jurisdiction he could get renef. Mr Beetham—Yoe; but in the meantime if he did not appeal and get relief you could press mc to unprieon, «ia rather risky f I don't like the look of it. Inferentially iteeemeto can fix the penalty, the InVercargiH Board appear to have assumed that tbeycao. Why sSuld they not ? Mr Martin-There mno per in Se Act given them gagg* fee landlords and judge. Mr Beetham--X will take time to consider this. Mr Martin -Lffliere does not eeom to have been any deoieione on the point; I cannot find any » the books. The case wa. adjourned OB January 21st.