A ROLAND FOR AN OLIVER.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4454, 6 November 1885, Page 2

A ROLAND FOR AN OLIVER.

Messrs Morrison and Burnott, a firm of solicitors lit Woodvillo, havo brought before tho notice of tho public a matter of gravp importance to holders of land in Spocial Settlements. Tho correspondonco on tho subject explains itself:— , •

Gcnoral Crown Lands Offico, Wellington, 28th October, 1885. Gentlomon,—l am directed by tho Honorablo tlio Premier, in tlio abscneo of tho Honorablo Minister of Lands to inform you that.it has come to tho knowledge of tho Government that your firm acting on .behalf of tho WoodvilloTiraumca Special Settlement Association lias offered nn intending , settlor a section of land on which £10 has boon paid for a onsli payment of £10, at tho same time charging a foo of 7a for your letter and advice )o tho intending settlor. Mr Stout directs mo to point out to you that speculation in sections in Special Settlement Blocks prior to thoir being allocated is wholly illegal and will not bo allowed by tho Government. Tho Secretaries of the threo Spocial Settlomont Associations which havo been promoted at "Woodvillo havo boon informed accordingly and it has been intimated to thorn that if Kiicli transactions are countonancod tho Government will refuso to finally set apart any land whatever for thoso associations. —I havo tho honor to bo, gcntlomcn, your obedient servant, H. J. H. Elliott, UnderSocretary. To Messrs Morrison and Burnett, Solicitors, Woodvillo.

Woodvillo, October 31st, 1885. H. J. H. Elliott, IJnder-Seoretary, Crown Lancia Office, Wellington. Your lottor No. 1061 -I wo havo received this morning , . It is to bo regretted that pooplo who seem to bo minions _of and touts for, tho Governmont in this district, should not havo a-greater sonso of honor and truthfulness than, judging from the information they supply, they seem to have. Wo nro ntu loss to understand what security tho public, taking advantage of tho ordinary system of corrospqndonco, havo against the practices of a Government who, apparently, have no scruples in procuring a knowledge of tho contents of private lottery through unknown channels. This breach of known principle is all tho more flagrant when tho lcttor in question in a communication from solicitor to client, which tho Court*) of Justice (as Mr Stout ought to know) hold sacred. Mr Stout is no doubt aware■ that wo are entitled to apply to tho Court for an in juncture restraining tho publication by him of a private lottor, tho contcute of which are entirely in accordance with the law. Wo do not condescend to any explanation on the subject of your lottor. undor reply as wo consider it clearly beyond the province of even tho Premier of NewZealand (who by tho way is tho nomiueo and servant of the people) to interfere bolweon solicitors and their clients. Mr Stout volunteers to us an opinion by him as to tho legality of tlio action which, according to your letter, we havo advised. When wo wish Mr Stout's opinion, on any point of law wo shall writo and ask him for it and pay him his feo, but havinjr a recollection of tho decision in "Hiircins v. thoOtago Land Board," wo are more ooutoiit for tho present at all ovonts, with. our own. Tho letter Tjnder reply we deem contemptible (saving of ooursoany reference to its writer Mi- Elliott) and return it Wβ* with. Mobb;son aw $to^ti.