WASTE LANDS BOARD.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 7619, 16 December 1886, Page 3

WASTE LANDS BOARD.

Wednesday, December 15. The Board met at 11.30 a.m. Present— Tho Chief Commissioner (in the chair), Captain Russell, and Messrs C. Hall, R. Harding, and J. James. THE STURDY CASE. The Chairman stated that Mr R. Sturdy and his legal adviser, Mr Morrison, wore in attendance, and desired to address the Board in reference to the question of Mr Sturdy leasing his selection to another person. It was decided to hear what Mr Sturdy wished to urge. Mr Morrison said that the position of affairs was one simply stated. Mr Sturdy was advised that the lease he had executed was no breach of the conditions of his license to occupy, nor. of the land laws- under which his license had been taken out, on the ground that the lease was not granted .pursuant to any arrangement between the parties to that effect made prior to the land bpiug taken up. The lease was in itself evidence that might justify an inquiry by the Board, under the Acts of 1883 and 1885, but forfeiture could only follow proof of prior arrangement snch as he _ had referred to. He produced two declarations, one each made respectively' by Sturdy, the lessee, and these declarations were the only two sources from which evidence could be obtained as to whether the lease was or was not granted pursuant to arrangement prior to the selection of the land. He submitted that the leasewa^ therefore no breach of the conditions, inasmuch as it was an after thought by which Sturdy sought to beneficially work the land by the aid of another person. This contention, Mr Morrison urged, was upheld by the ' judgment of Mr Justice Williams in a somewhat similar case, Otago Land Board v. Higgins, where the Judge decided that forfeiture of the license conld only follow proof that the declaration made at the time of taking up the land was falsely made. The case was taken to the Court of Appeal, which upheld the Judge's decision. In reference to the lease from Sturdy to Mason, it was one- giving the right to cut timber, the timber being treated as a chattel. It was evident that the lease as dealing only with timber as a chattel, and not aa land, conld not be affected by the Land Act, which dealt only with land. There were cases in which the sale of growing timber caused an interest in land to pass, and it might be urged that, to some extent, interest in land passed under the lease being considered, but as tho land was considered merely as a warehouse for the timber, and only the right to cut timber had been granted, the lease was not an instrument involving a breach of the Act, He did not ask the Board to accept his view of the oase, but to again remit the matter to the Board's solicitor for further, consideration, together with, the declarations made by Messrs Sturdy find Mason. Some discussion followed, the Commissioner and Mr Harding pointing out that the Board had never considered the question from the point of view of the preliminary declaration made, as it never occurred to them that Mr Sturdy made a false declaration. Action was taken on the strength of that clause in the Act of 1885 which gave the Board power to forfeit a license if, after inquiry, they were convinced that the conditions of occupancy aud sole benefit made by the Act were boing transgressed. . Mr Morrison replied that the clause did not affect the question, as the conditions wore simply a cony of those in tho Act of 1883, upon' whicli Mr Jnstice Williams' decision was based. That decision was afterwards upheld by the other judges. All that was asked was that the matter should be again considered by the Board's solicitor. Messrs Morrison and Sturdy then withdrew, and the Board, after a little conversational discussion, decided to remit the lease (handed in by Mr Morrison) and the declarations to the Board's solicitor, Mr A. J. Cotterill, for an opinion on the question. | CORRESPONDENCE. The following correspondence was read and dealt with : — From the Under-Secretory, in reference to the question as to the payment of "thirds' on account of deferred payment lands, and stating that vouchers for such payments shonld not be made out in favor of town boards or boroughs.—Received. From the same, stating that the Government had been advised under section 127 of the Land Act, 18S5, and section 10 of the Town Districts Act, 1881, that "thirds" received in respect of deferred payment lands within the boundary of a Town Board district were legally payable, for the several purposes mentioned in the Land Act, to the county within which such district was situated. Further, that the same would apply to rents received from perpetual leasing Land. — Received. From the same, in reference to tho payment of " thirds " to local bodies, pointing out that under the terms of section ]2S of tho Land Act, 18S5, local bodies were entitled to receive one-third of the capitalised value of tho instalments in respect to deferred payment lands, whero the whole amount had been paid, but that local bodies were not entitled to receive any portion of tho interest paid by 1 selectors on snoh capitalised value. — Received, From Mr W. Watcrhonse, on behalf of tho Taradale River Board, staling thai tho Board had no objection to the land recently applied for by the Rev. Father Sauzcau being vested for river conservation purposes.— Received. From Mr G. A. Macdonald, on the same subject, stating that a' petition against the land being vested in the Taradale River Board was being largely .sigltpil, and would bo presented to the Board, who were therefore asked to reconsider thoir former decision.—Consideration postponed until receipt of petition. From the Rev. Father Yardin, on the same subject, objecting to tho whole of the strip of land referred to being vested in the Taradale River Board, and stating that Father Sauzoau claimed the laml between the Mission property and the river, as a compensation to him for having at his own cost prevented the river overflowing. — Consideration postponed as above. From the Kumcroa Road Board, in reference to the money that should have ■. ■ ' \

been spent on the Otawhao-road, hloei 14, but that was wrongly expended o: the Brindle-road, block 13, and ptatir, that the Auditor General refused to allo\ the money to be refunded. — The Com mis sioner was of opinion that either th Road Board or the Auditor-General hai made a mistake, and cousideratioi of the letter was postponed pending communication with the Wellingtoi authorities. From Mr F. Jackson, selector of sectio: 22, block 9, Tahoraite, asking what sun of money had been paid to the Woodvill Road Doard out of tho deferred -paymen thirds to be laid out on the road leadin] to sections 21 and 22, block IX., am stating that only three chains of road hai as yet been formed on tho road,— Th Commissioner said that £90 should hay been spent on the road, but only £9 hai been expended — Referred to the SVood villo Road Board. . ' From the Waipawa County Conncil forwarding the following resolution passei by them :— " That application be made t< tho r Maunga-atua and Woodville Roa< Boards, and to the Commissioner of Crowi Lands, for the money available for ex penditure on Hardings-road, and that .tin overseer report where the money shoulc be spent."— lt was decided that lists of tin amounts already paid or now due be pre pared and forwarded to the Woodville am Mannga-atua Road Boards, and that thej be asked if they would consent to the pro posal, and whether they were willing t< hand over to the Council the moneys already received, or yet to be receivet from the selectors fronting Harding-road From the Maharahara'. Road 1 , Board recommending that £26 out of deferred payment thirds due be expended on th< road fronting sections 51, 52, and 53, foi two culverts and 13^ chains of formations — Recommendation approved, and th< Road Board to be requested to forwarc recommendations for the expenditure ol the balance, £108 18s 4d. From the Norsewood Road Board, for warding recommendations for the ex penditni-e of deferred - payment thirds, amounting to £70 8s 8d. — Approved. From ■ Mr A. Macdonald, selector ol section 9, block 9, Tahoraite, applying tc pay up the balance of his purchase money. — Approved. From Mr H, Snyrthe,' asking for a fur ther extension of time for. completing his improvements. — Referred to the rangei for report. From Messrs Brooking, and St. Clair, for Mr C. H. Christiansen, selector oi section 68, Danevirke, asking that residence on his section might be dispensed with for three months, as (he selector had not been able to dispose of his property it] Napier.— Residence dispensed with for six months. Some formal business was transacted, and the Board then adjourned.