PERPETUAL LEASES.

Evening Star, Issue 7298, 24 August 1887, Page 2

PERPETUAL LEASES.

A LESSEE’S DECLARATION ATTACKED,

The Land Board were occupied this morning with an inquiry into the validity of a declaration made by James Patterson, the purchaser of per* petual-lease section 9, block 14, Chatton, which has lately been occupied by John Ballentyne, Mr V. Pyke represented Ballentyne, who appeared as a plaintiff in the matter, and Mr J. Macgregor appeared for Patterson.

Mr Pyke, in opening the inqmy, said that he wished it to be understood that there was no imputation made against the character of Patterson, who thought that he was legally qualified to tender for the section. Ballentyne was one of those settlers who could not pay his arrears of rent, and he surrendered in order that ho might get the land again at a lower rental. He tendered for the re-purchase of the land, but James Patterson also tendering, he was precluded by section 156 of the Act from getting the land. It had been since discovered that Patterson conjointly owned with his two brothers 600 acres of land, and by getting Ballentyne’s section, which was 122 acres, he now held more land than was allowed by section 140, viz., 640 acres. Mr Pyke produced a caveat under the seal of the Land Registrar of Invercargill, dated the 27th June, 1884, by which James, Robert, and Samuel Patterson claimed to have a joint interest in sections 1, 10. and 11, block 14, Chatton, which contained 600 acres. The following evidence was then called by Mr Pyke:— George A. Reade: lam receiver of land revenue. I received a cheque for valuation of improvements on section 9, block 14, Chatton, on the 18th May, from either James Patterson or bis brother. ■ It was signed J, and S. Patterson. James Perkins; I am clerk of the Enapdale Road Board. I know sections 1, 10, and 11, block 14, Chatton. I really do not know who owns them. The rates have been paid by cheque signed “J. and S. Patterson.” I never received separate payments on account of these sections. Cross-examined by Mr Macgregor; The sections are rated separately in the books, I applied to James Patterson for the rates. I gave him a list for the whole of the rates due by four different owners. I did not expect him to collect the rates, but I gave him the list because he had sent a cheque for the lot previously, Patterson never said he would get the money from the others and send it on, I was property tax assessor when the last valuation was made. Each section was assessed separately. Re-examined; The sections were rated separately by the Board, but the rates were paid by one cheque, lam not sure that I gave Patterson a list. He has always been in the habit of paying for the whole.

John Ballentyne; lam a settler in Chatton district. I held the perpetual lease of section 9, block 14, for about three years. In consequence of a notice from the Board, I surrendered my lease. I thought if I cou'd get it at a reduced rental I might be able to struggle along. I had made improvements which were valued at LSO. I put in a tender for the re-purchase of the section, wishing to retain the laud. In 1897 I worked for J. and S. Patterson, and they did some work for me. They were both present when I was engaged for the work. They were working a threshing machine on section 11. The account produced in the name of J. and S, Patterson shows the transactions between the Pattersons and myself. There is no boundary fence between sections 10 and 11. Cross-examined; The land was subdivided, but the fence was not on the boundary line. Andrew Harvey: I am a farmer at Wai kaka. I have had business transactions with J. and S. Patterson, I bought growing turnips from them on section 1. I spoke to Samuel about the matter, James being present. They consulted with each other, but I made the bargain with Samuel, whom I paid. James took delivery of my sheep and Samuel gaye them back to me. I produce an account in the patne of J. and S. Patterson, and signed by Bamnel. I have seen the same teams of horses working ou sections 1,10, and 11. Thomas Atterwall Edwin: I was engaged to work for J. and S. Patterson by Samuel Patterson some time last year. I was paid by cheque in the name of J. and S. Patterson. I have wotked on sections 1,10, and 11. I got orders from James and Samuel, Robert never interfered. I was discharged by James. Cross-examined: Samuel was away at the threshing-mill when I was discharged. Thomas Hughan: I am a Crown Lands Hanger. I know the sections occupied by the Pattersons, James lives on section 11. There is no house on section 10. Mr Fyke here said he would leave any legal argument in the hands of Mr Mouat. Mr Macgregor addressed the Board, urging that no proof had been given that Patterson’s declaration was invalid. He said he would produce docup cuts showing that the Patterson Bros, each owned one of the sections, and explained that they only worked together to save expense, and that they jointly owned a mill. Peter Duncan, solicitor, who was then called, produced a receipt for the deposit money paid on the sections, and also an agreement, by which it was arranged that each of the brothers should have a section. They had not yet received their titles to the land. James Patterson deposed: I live on section 11, on which I have a house. It is fenced; but the south fence is not on the boundary line. My holding includes about five acres cf section 10, which is my brother’s. I have no interest, direct or indirect, in any other section b«t sec-, tion 11. I arranged wjth my brothers to take up a section of about 209 acres. My brother Samuel and I have a threshing mill between us, and we have taken up contracts together. We had a bank account in connection with our transactions in the name of J. and S. Patterson. Cross-examined by Mr Mouat; I have nothing to do with the rendering of the mill accounts. Any money received from the farm is paid into the bank, whether I or my brother Samuel gets it. We were contracting for some considerable time before we bad a partnership account, which was commenced just before we got the mill. My brother’s sheep-brand is the same as mine—" H P ’’—but the sheep are branded on different sides, so that we can distinguish them. The Chief Commissioner (Mr Maitland) here put some questions whioh Mr Mouat considered leading, and the latter remarked that it seemed as if Mr Maitland was endeavoring to sot the witness up just as if he were advocating his case.

The Chief Commissioner said that he was perfectly justified 'in putting the questions he had. As to Mr Mouat s remar s. hs could only characterise them as being most extraordinary.' Mr Mouat; I leave the public to judge whether an impartial tribunal—whether it was ever known in any properly-constituted tribunal of a chairman actually putting leading questions. The Chief Commissioner: I was not putting leading questions, Mr Mouat; I say most distinctly you were. I should be exceedingly sorry—l would be the last man in the world to make such a reflection except I felt perfectly justified. Feeling so satisfied, I do not care whether it is Mr Maitland, the Governor, the Fiince of Wales, or anybody else. The Chief Commissioner i I am quite content to leavp it in the hsnds of the public. I most say I coul4 not hear what the Witness said. Mr Mouat t That wag because the Board were manifestly and obviously not paying attention. The Chief Commissioner ; Oh 1 Wo are the judges of that. The inquiry then terminated, and the Board decided to give a decision next week.