LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 3946, 31 May 1913, Page 7

LANDS FOR SETTLEMENT.

THE TRAFFIC QUESTION. INTERESTING REMARKS BY MR. JUSTICE COOPER. THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISLATION. 5

[press association telegram.^ AUCKLAND, May 30. " Mr. Justice Cooper, in refusing an . application’by George James Edwards that Seth Webb ancTMartm Roberts, holders of a. block of 3000 acres' of Crown lease' at. Matanxata, be required to fulfil an alleged agreement to sell their interest in 1000 acres, said that the question he had been asked to decide was whether the -defendants had any power to give possession of the laixd in question to the plaintiff, and whether the agreement was not an unlawful one, as contravening the provisions of the Land for Settlemexxts Act, His Honor said: “The laixd leased to the defendants is settlement land within the meaning of the Land for Settlements Act, 1908, acquired by the Crown under the Act. It is also rural land within the meaning of that Act and of the Land Act, 1908. The term of the lease commenced on July 1, 1911. The rental was £33 a year, but' the lessees had to pay £690 for improvements by the previous owner. The total acreage was 2956. The defendant had prior to the making of the agreement with the plaintiff entered into four similar agreements with other persons to sell their interest in four portions at the following prices: 115 acres at £2 an acre, £3OO ; 400 acres at £3 2s 6d, £1250; 800 acres at £4, £3200; 250

acres at £2 10s, £62s—total £5375

The agreed purchase money for 1000 acres to be sold to plaintiff was £3500. The defendants had therefore contracted to sell 2600 acres of the 2956 acres held by them, and the total purchase nxonev for these five areas is £8875. “In my opinion,” said his Honor, “it is clear that the provisions of the Land for Settlements Act were intended to prevent land being acquired by selectors under that Act for any other purpose than bona fide settlement, aixd it is the duty of the Court to constrxxe these provisions and those of the Land Act, 1908, which are not inconsistent with them in such a way as to give effect, if possible' to the manifest intention of the Legislature. ”

His Honor went on to say that the Land for Settlements Acts from the time of the first Act of 1592 up to the passing of the present Act in 1908 were also intended to provide a means by which “landless” persons desirous of becoming bona fide settlers should be able to obtain land, restrictive provisions to effect this becoming from time to time more stringent. It was enacted in section 1 of the Lands for Settlement Act, 1901, that every applicant should reside upon the section he had obtained. This section now appears as section 54 of the Act of 1908. In 1896 the period within which the successful applicant was restricted" froyi disposing of his lease without the consent of the Land Board or the approval of the Minister was extended to five years, this provision being re-enaeted in 1900. and again in 190 S. It was found that this was not sufficient to prevent land being acquired for the purpose of speculation, and in 1901 the Legislature absolutely prohibited the transfer of land comprised in the lease within the period of five years, except in the case of death or of some “extraordinary event.” In 1908 this provision was limited to l'ural land, being, presumably, considered inapplicable to town or suburban allotments. , ... His Honor agreed with the solicitor for the defendants that the mischief which the Legislature intended to prevent was the opportunity for dummy ism and the exploiting by land spedilators of land intended for landless persons solely for bona fide settlement. “The present is a flagrant case of such exploitation,” he continued. The defendants have acquired the lease ostensibly for bona fide settlement by them at a-rental of £33 a year and a cash pavment of £690 for improvements. “ Within a few months after the date of the lease they have agreed to sell their interest in 2600 acres of the block of 2956 acres for sums ot mon»v, which, of the agreements can be carried out, will return. them a net profit of over £BOOO. It is jost such transactions as these that I am satisfied the Legislature intended to for“Section 65 must receive such fair, large, and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the object of the enactment in its true intent, meaning, /and spirit, and that object is, I cannot doubt, to prevent applicants who are successful selectors from trafficking in the land they are fortunate enough, to obtain under the Act, this trafficking being contrary to the public good.” His Honor further ruled that, apart altogether from the question of the legality of the contract, the plaintiff had failed to establish a breach or contract by the defendants, and he gave judgment for the defendants. The defendants’ counter-claim for damages from plaintiff in his alleged refusal to perform the agreement must also fail, for Mr. McVeagh, their counsel, had submitted that the contract- ivas unlawful, and that contention would be upheld. . The counter-claim, his Honor concluded, was entirely founded upon an alleged breach by the plaintiff of toe terms of the contract. Each pait\ was ordered“to pay his own costs.