A LAND PARTNERSHIP

Dominion, Volume 19, Issue 94, 15 January 1926, Page 9

A LAND PARTNERSHIP

BREACH OF GRAZING RUN LEASE CONDITIONS. By Telegraph—I j kssr AssociationGisborne, Tanitary IJ. A somewhat unusual case came before the Gisborne Land Board to-day, which involved the question whethei a tenant could take in a partner unknown to the board and be considered as occupying the section exclusively for his own personal use and benefit and not directlv nor indirectly for the benefit of some other person. Under the conditions relating to small grazing runs, it is distinctly’ . laid down that; the lessee must gain the land concerned for his own use and benefit. A statement placed before the board showed that at the November meeting L. G. Spence made application to subdivide run 41 and transfer to H. L. Spence. T. B. Spence and 11. C. Spence. On investigation being made it was found that'L. L Spence had taken his brother T. ”B. Spence into partnership soon after the original lease was granted in 1990 and the partnership still existed. ~ Solicitors for the parties were thej called on to show cause why the section should not be forfeited. The case, continued the statement, was a serious one and if it was considered that onlv a technical breach was committed then a similar partnership would have to be allowed on all Crown leases, in other words, the board would have to be careful not to create a precedent. It was reported that such partnerships were fairlv common iip this district and if such was the case it was essential that publicity shou'6 given to the fact that thev were illec-al. In the course of a long discussion bv members, the Commissioner (Mr. E. H. Farnie) said that the Act aimed at preventing dummyism, but there was no ouestion of anything like that in the present case. Members generally were of opinion that onlv a technical breach bad been committed. It was decided that the na.rtnershin was a breach of the conditions of the lense and that the parties should be called on fo dissolve it immediately, otherwise forfeiture would have to be considered.