COMPENSATION COURT.—Tuesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M., Commissioner.] j

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXII, Issue 2867, 3 October 1866, Page 5

COMPENSATION COURT.— Tuesday. [Before T. Beckham, Esq., R.M., Commissioner.] j

The Court resumed its sittings at the usual hour this morning. The first case called on for hearing was CLAIM OF THE LATE MR. BNOLAND. Mr. Crispe said he had made application to the Colonial Secretary for copy of a letter from the Governor, authorising the late Mr. England to reside amongst the Maoris, and to teach them how to make shoes ; and in reply he was informed that no copy could be found, either in the Colonial Secretary's office or in that of the Private Secretary. The Commissioner said he would take the opportunity of looking over the notes, and give his decision in a day or two. CLAEtt OF WILLIAM HTJNTRB, PAPAKTXBA. The original claim was £175 10s. ; the award, £140. Mr. Boardman took exoeption to the award for non-oocupation for 12 months. Mr. Hunter stated that his farm lay between Mr. Ligar's and Mr. Cawley's, and consisted of 150 acres under cultivation. The bush coming from the^ ranges to the house rendered it dangerous to occupy it. He thought it might have been occupied at the same time as Cowley'a. To Mr. Crispe : He did not think it could have been profitably occupied in less than 12 months. The house was destroyed. - The Commissioner reduced the award for non. occupation, leaving the turn of £106. QLA.IM: 07 JiLI^AJQETH GBJORGBJi ONE3UNCU. Original claim, £144 10s. ; former award, £107. Mrs, Grant, on being sworn, said her son was oooupying the farm at ManngatautaA qnd Mr. uraut sroppecr~on~tne~Tararaurxng the "war as his own risk and responsibility. David Grant, on being sworn, said he resided on Mrs. George's farm iv July, 1863, and was acting *3 manager of the farm. He left in August, 1866, and resided there all the intervening time. They kept cows, and did general farming work. They sold milk to the troops stationed at Queen's Redoubt, Pokeno. The house was about half-a-mile from where the troops were located. He shared the profits with Mrs. George. They were equal sharers iv the profits. He paid Mrs. George once in 12 months. He paid the first year's proceeds to her. There was a house : he was at part of the expense of building it, It was put up for him in May, 1863. The fencing destroyed in 1863 4, during the war, might be 8 or 10 chains. It was destroyed by the flying column. There were not 30 chains destroyed during the war after he went there. There could not have been 1,000 rails and fences on the farm without his knowing it. They- were nob brought on the ground or cut while he was there. There really was no grass. The farm had not been occupied for about two years when he went. He could not say there were any paddocks fenced. The fences were decayed and broken down. There were not 20 acres in fair grass ; there might be 15 acres. He could not tell the exact amount he paid to Mrs. George, but he paid the produce of the first year to her. To Mr. Crispe : He was employed by Mrs. George, and received half the profits. He occupied the whole farm, Mrs. George agreeing to pay him 4s. a day for every day he worked. The first arrangement was that she should allow the use of half the produce of six cows for his attendance. Six was to be the start. Mrs. George paid at the close a balance of £180 for labour and work. That sum was spent partly in improvements. He only drew wages for six months; after that he was oontent with half the profits of the dairy. To Mr. Boardman • Whether he received or paid money, he was absolutely occupying the farm from July, 1863, to 1865. Mrs. George supplied the cows, and divided the proceeds. To the Commissioner ; The gross amount reoeived for milk for the year was over £300. I sold the milk at 6d. and 9d. a quart. The cows ran about the country, there being no feed at home. Thomas George, sworn, said the posts and rails were on the road side, placed there preparatory to being used for fencing about 32 chains. He was aware of the agreement with Mr, Grant, who was to have one-half of the proceeds. The land was in good grass, but partly grown over with fern. To Mr. Boardman ; I do not know the rails and posts were destroyed. I know they were removed. I believe they were there early in 1863. I saw them in 1861 or 1862. They were not there in July, 1863. Mr. Crispe briefly addressed the Court, and said the witness Grant appeared to have very confused notions as to the duties of a manager of a farm and a day labourer. Ai for the posts and rails, Mr. Grant itated that he had seen them on the ground. Mr. Boardman replied, and said the facts were so plain that it was supererogatory to oocupy the time of the Court by dwelling upon them. The witness Grant had clearly proved there was an occupancy of the farm, and whilst he was giving his evidence Mrs. George interrupted him by saying she was only to receive half the 'milk. That vras an admission that she received a benefit from Grant's occupation. The farm has been very beneficially occupied, for the milk was sold for the highest price that could be obtained in Auckland. The fencing, according to Mr. George's admission, was not on the ground before the date on which the Commissioner was authorised to investigate claims. The whole claim was one be should not like to characterise, as he wished to avoid the use of strong language, but it certainly was one of the worst claims that had come before the Court. If Mrs. George had been well advised, she would have done as another lady had done, and withdrawn her 1 claim. Her^'advisers he felt persuaded, would have recommended that course if he had known the facs* of the case. It was painful to do so, but he mast aay the whole claim ought to be disallowed. The Commissioner reviewed ths proceedings, and said, after the evidence adduced, the Court could not ratify the award. The claim was, therefore, struok out. CLAIM OV W. JKLLEY, OP MATTNGATATJTARI. Original claim, £480 10s. ; award, £237 10s. The only question in this case was as to the occupation of the farm for part of the year. The claimant, who conducted hi« own case, showed that I his farm wat in so dangerous a position that it could not have been beneficially occupied for 12 months. No alteration wm made in the award, with this exception, owing to an error in the olftiuu <C3l J»a

been awarded too much. The final award, therefore, stood at £206 10s. CLAIM OF ROBERT RITCHTJI, AWITU. Claim, £72; former award, £61; final award, £36. An amount for a cow in calf had been entered in the olaim twice. This animal had been seen about 1 twelve months ago, and was not, therefore, lost during the war. The two Bums were, therefore, deducted from the former award. CLAIM Or W. WALL, MATTN&ATAWHIRI. Original claim, £696; award, £296; final award, £141,. • CLAIM OP W. MEATYARD, MAUNGAT VWHTRI. Former claim and award, £18 17s. Bd.; final •ward, £18 17s. Bd.; no objection being raised by the Government, The Court adjourned at 3.80 until to-day.