FORFEITED ROUS

Evening Star, Issue 19129, 22 December 1925, Page 6

FORFEITED ROUS

UNIVERSITY EHMfMENTS AT BENRORE VALUATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENTS THE COURT’S OPINION. This morning His Honor Mr Justice Sim gave judgment in the ease which was stated by the Band Board for the opinion of the judge under section 61 of the Band Act, 1921. The questions submitted related to runs 548 and 552, forming part of the Otago University endowment at Bcnmore. His Honor stated that licenses to occupy these runs for pastoral purposes were issued by tho Baud Board in tho year 1916, under the provisions of the .Band Act, 1908. These licenses were both terminated before the expiration of the terms of twenty-one years for which respectively they were granted, ft was proposed at first, that run 548 should be surrendered under section 254 of tho Land Act, 1908, but this was not done, am! in the end the hoard resolved on March LI, 1923, that tho license he declared cancel led. Tins appeared to have been done in intended exercise of the power conferred by section 2-'i6 of tho Act. but the notice required by that section was not given to the licensees, and the prior consent of the Minister of Gauds was not obtained, as required by section 20 of the, Band Laws Amendment Act, 1921-22. The license for run 552 was declared forfeited in professed exercise of the power conferred by section 251 of the Band Act, 1908, but tho consent of tlie Minister of Lands was not obtained as required by section 20 of the Act, 1921-22. Tho runs were both relot to row tenants, and licenses to occupy them for pastoral purposes were duly issued by the board. Tho now licensees were required to pay valuation for 1 lie improvements on the runs, and the questions submitted were in connection with the disposal of the moneys received in this way. The amount received from the new licensee of run 548 was £7OO Is, anil the board proposed to apply £3OB 12s 2d, part thereof, in payment of arrears of rent owing by the original licensees, and Co in payment of the costs of re-entry. Tho balance of £419 8s 10d was claimed on tho one hand by the University of Otago, and on the other hand by Wright, Stephenson, and Co., Ltd., to whom the original license was assigned bv way of mortgage. The amount received fmm the now licensee of run 552 was £2,194 Is, and the beard proposed to apply £1,336 2s 2d, part thereof, in payment of arrears of rent owing by the original licensee, £5 in payment of the costs of re-entry, and COG 12s Cd in payment of rates. The balance of £786 (is 4d was claimed on tho one hand by tho University of Otago, and on the oilier hand by J. C. Macdonald, to whom the original license was assigned bv wav of mortgage.

It was contended on behalf of tlio University (continued His Honor) that, as the board bad not complied with the provisions of the Land Act in terminating the licenses, the original licensees must be treated as having been evicted. In such a ease the board, it was argued, was not entitled to require the new licensee to pay for improvements on the run. It might bo that what look place in each easo amounted to an eviction, or, as suggested by Mr Adams, to a surrend >r by operation of law. It might be toe ease that the original licensees would not have been entitled to insist on the new licensees being required to pay valuation for improvements, although it was to be observed that section 72 and 74 of the Land Act, 1 Aid, contemplated a payment Vicing made lor improvements to a lessee or licensee whose lease or license bad been lorfoited for breach of condici'ms. Lot whether bound to do so nr not, tlio board did require the new licensees to pay for the improvements on the runs, and tin’s was done without any objection on the part of the University. In the circumstances the University was not entitled, llis Honor thought;, to raise any question as to the propriety of the mm so adopted ly the board, and, for the purpose of dealing with the questions submitted. That course must be assumed to have been lawful. The new licensees having been required to pay valuation for improvements, Iho moneys received Irom them in this way must be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 74 of the Land Act. In fixing the amount to bo paid for arrears ol rent for linn 548, the board treated rent as payable only up to duly 6, 1921, this lining the date on which His Excellency the Governor-General authorised the Commissioner of Crown Lands to accept the surrender of tlio license for that run. But that surrender was not completed, and the licensees remained liable for rent, at any rate up to March 14, 1924, the dale on which I lie board resolved to declare the license cancelled. These further arrears ot rent would more than absorb the £4lO Rs ]od in dispute, and tlio University was entitled, therefore, to have that sum applied in payment pro tanto of those further arrears, subject, ot course, to any deduction for costs which might have been agreed upon by 11m parties. That was the answer to Iho questions so far as they related in Bun 548. Tim University had not raised anv question in connection with ih 0 arrears of rent for Bon 552, and the position, therefore, was that that the balance of £7BO Os 4d was payable, in terms ol section /4, to Mi T. G. Macdonald as the assignee, by way of mortgage, of the. original license, subject,'"of course, to any deduction lor costs which might have been agreed on by iho parties. That was the answer to the questions so far as they related to Bnn 552.