A LAND JUDGMENT.

Clutha Leader, Volume XXXIX, Issue 84, 6 June 1913, Page 3

A LAND JUDGMENT.

STRONG JUDICIAL COMMENT. AUCKLAND, May'3o. An important judgment bearing o; trafiio 111 Grown teases vvaa delivers by Mr Justice O<)op0i? at th© Suprem Court this morning. The caee was i claim of George James Edward agamst Seth Webb and Martin .Roberts and it was heard before his Honor a toe recent circuit sittings at Hamilton a point of law having been left for tin Uencn to decide. Defendants mo hold era of 21)66 acres of "settlement Jand' at Alatamata, and plaint.ft sued for «[ leged breach of agreement to sell th< leasehold intei-eat in 1000 acres of it -_ln the_ course of his judgment iiw Honor said : Defendants have contract ed to sell 2600 acres (in five areas) oi tiie acres held by them, and th< total purchase money lor these fiv< a*eas is £8875. If these transactions are carried out and the purchase monej paid defendants will make a profit oi over £BOOO, and they will still retail nearly 400 acres of land leased, and this area has also been agreed to bt sold to someone. The whole of these transactions has t&ken place within the first 12 months of the term of the lease and within 18 months of the date oi 'the leas©. This is speculation of the gravest kind ui land which was acquired by the Government under the Land for Settlement Act for the purpose of bona fide settlement. In this j action plaintiff claimed damages from the delendants for alleged breach of an agreement made between tlieni, and defendants agreed to sell and the plaintiff to purchase "the leasehold estate and interest' of the yericlors in a block of land of 1000 acres, more or less in 10? noi ; tll - we « !t em portion of section 180 of Matamata settlement. The defendants, while admittting.. that the consent of the Land Board was necessary to the transfer of the land, denied that sueh consent was necessary to its possession pending the obtaining of sueh consent. They denied that plainuit was ready to perform the agreement that they had refused to apply to the Land Board for the consent to tiie agreement, and that they refused i ,o give possession to plaintiff. They i * ?" unt fr-claim for damages from plaintiff lor his alleged refusal to perform the agreement. The question of law which his Honor had been asked to decide was whether fclie defendants had any power to give i>o®ession of the land in question to uiaiiitiit, and whether the agreement >vas not an unlawful one, as contravening provisions of the Land and Set-' demerits Act. His Honor said that the taiid. leased.to defendants is "settlement ■and'' within the meaning of the Land .or Settlements Act, 1908, acquired by tenants. under t'lw Act. It is •ilso '"rural" laud within the meaning it that Act, and of the Land Act 1908. i he term of lease commenced on July 1, ■ 11. The rental was £33 a year, but Jio lessees had to pay £690 for improvements by the previous owner. The total acreage was 2956. Defendants had prior to tiie making of the agreement with ;ht> plaintiff entered into four similar i«reements with other persons to sell olie interest in, four portions. It had »een agreed that the purchase money i>i' fcne 1000 acres to be sold to plaintiff ■vas £3500. Defendants had contracted 0 sell i£6oo acres of 2956 acres held by ■ em. and the total purchase money for "hese five areas is £8875. "In my •pinion,'' said his Honor, "it is clear -nat the provisions of the Land for x'ttJement Act were not intended to ,/i'eveiit land being acquired by the selectors under tliat Act for any other purpose than bona fide settlement, and: t is tiie duty of the court to construe .liese provisions, and these of the Land • ice, 11)08, in such a way as to give elect, it possible, to the manifest inten--ion of the Legislature. His Honor ■vent on to say that the Land for Settleiient Acts from the time of the first .ct of 1892 up to the passing of the ./resent Act ill 1908 were also intended' .o provide means by which "landless" -crsous tiesirous of becoming bona fide efctlers should: be aible to obtain land, . esbnetive provisions to effect this becoming from time to time more stringent. It was enacted in section 9of ..10 Land for Settlement Act, I9ui, that .•very applicant should reside continualy upon the section he had obtained. . his section now appeal's as section 54 .r the Act of 1908. In 1896 the period ,u which a successful applicant was ■ustricted hom disposing of has lease vitnouc. the consent of the Land Hoard' >r approval of the Minister was extend- . to five years, this provision being .•o-euacti'd in 1900, and again in 1908. It ivas found that this was not sufficient ) prevent land being acquired for the .;ijrposo of speculation, and' in 1901 tiie .< uisiature absolutely prohibited the •ransfer of land comprised iin the leas© .lu.mi a period of five years, except in ■use of death or of extraordinary event. Lit 1908 tiio provision was limited .to rural land, it being presumably considered applicable to town or suburban al.otmente. His Honor agreed with the solicitor for the Department that tiie mischief which the Legislature intended .o prevent was tihe opportunity of Jummyism and exploiting by land lieculators of land intended for landess persons solely for bona fide setfeta,ient. "The present is «. flagrant oas® of such exploiting," he continued, "Deen dams have acquired a leas© osten* -iiblv for bona fide settlements from hem at a rental of £33 a year and cash ..ayment of £690 for improvements. i'tliin a few months after tiie date of :ne lease they have agreed to sell their interest' in 2600 acres of the block of jj,36 acres for sums of money which, 1 the agreements can be carried' out, .vill return them a net profit of over i;»OGO. It is just such transactions as these that I am satisfied the Legislature intended to forbid. Section 65 must receive such fair, large, and ibera-1 construction and interpretation •is will best ensure the object of the euictment in its true intent, and that ol>iecti is I cannot doubt, to prevent applicants who are successful selectors from trafficking, being contrary to the ■lublic good.'' His Honor further ruled hat apart altogether from the question of the legality of the contract, the plaintiff had failed to establish a breach of contract by the defendants, and lie Rave judgment for defendants. Ine counter-claim must also fail. Their •outusel had submitted that tihe contract was unlawful, and the contention would be upheld. The counterclaim, his Honor concluded 1 , was entirely founded upon an alleged breach by the plaintiff of the terms of the contract. I'.ach party wa* ordered to pay hw own eosts.