PRE-EMPTIVE EIGHTS IN CANTERBURY.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1807, 5 December 1879, Page 3

PRE-EMPTIVE EIGHTS IN CANTERBURY.

In a paper laid on the table of the House on Preemptive Rights in Canterbury, the following memorandum by Mr J. Marahman appears:—For tho Secretary for Crown Lands Christchurcb, 4th Ojtober, 1879. I enclose a return, as requested by your telegram of the 19th ult., of pro-omplive rights purchased and unpurchased. It has taken a little longer time to put together than I at first thought it would. It would not bo possible, without a report founded on a detailed inspection, to give an estimate of the value of the improvements for which these pre-emptive rights are respectively claimed, and the point is perhaps not of much importance. The homestead pre-emptive right is praotioally indefeasible. The argument for this view may be thuß stated—The right is a statutory creation, and the statute which creates it does not make the continuance of it depend on conditions, nor doe§ it —and thi» point is a very impor-

' tant one —provide any means of extinguishing it. The Land Boards of the day being satisfied, as it must be assumed they ware, that tho qualification indicated by the statute then existed, and having under its nuthority issued an instrument investing the li :ensee of the pasturage runs with the right of pre-emption ovir the land described in it, cannot recall the instrument or divest him of that right except under authority equivalent to that which created it. In other words being a statutory right, or right resting on a statutory contract, it can be extinguished only by statutory process, or pursuant to statutory provision and no such provision exists. _ As to the improvement pre-emptive right, it is open to any applicant to question the holder's claim to it on the ground that improvements of the required value do not exist. This has been dono occasionally in past times—perhaps three times in a year, and whenever it is dono, notice is given to the rnnholder that his right is disputed. If the insufficiency of value is admitted, thero is of course an end of the case. If he claims that the objection is groundless and that the value is _ sufficient, tho question is decided upon ovidenco. I believe that of the comparatively small number of preemptive rights now existing very few will be purchased. They lie chiefly in tho hill country, covering foncinp, and the runholders would not in a general way be disposed to pay £2 an acre for such land as this is for tho Bake of securing about half a mile of fonco. This is about the length of the fonco covered by each fifty noes. Moreover ho would, if tho land wero purchased by somebody else, bo able ui-der the Canterbury Waste Lands Act, 18G7— whiohis still operative as respects all pasturngo licenses current whon tho Land Act, 1877, came into operation—to remove tho fence at any time within throe months after notice of tho purchase.—l have, &c, (Signed) John Mabshman.