WEST COAST RESERVES COMMISSION.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXII, 14 May 1912, Page 5

WEST COAST RESERVES COMMISSION.

COMMISSION OF ENQUIRY.

MONDAY'S SITTING.

resumed on Monday aeu*. His ,-ent was <5s per a^ H^ re ct;°o nun ar a bush °ne ' a*d k^Se to paWJ or up was to S aC- L;- f H1 also undentood be «as to be paid for busn-lelling lenciii" and buildings, lie did not think heTad any right or renewal, but at the end of ami ™T tlle + Jease Was to be earned and put up to competition. If lt W as not sold he and the Public TniS veie to come to terms as to a new lea*. When he took up the land t bush, with'the eJepW ot five acres He went on the land hunset and had continuously resiueu ou it toi tuenty-fave years. He had a slight reduction m rent for a time from 4 to £s 4d. He made an effort to convert his lease and was one of those who petitioned tor an amendment which would'give the lessees full compensation tor 9 u improvements. When the \ct or 1«»2 became law, he made application to the Public Trustee to come under that Act. A valuer was sent round to value the land, and the valuer put the rent up to such an extent tinit he could not see. his way to accept. He then withdrew his application, out previous to doing so ne interviewed the lubhc Trustee to see if he could not have the land revalued at something like what ie was Dei ore. Tad x-uuno Trustee said he could not do any tiling. 'I'm., was la iollo. .Lie never 'i^cua vi any more Actd uiuiti- wni^li he could nu.e tuii\ertea his lease.

Mr \\ eisii: Had you been aware in 19(XI that you comd have converted your lease on terms similar to the Act of 1892, would you have done so:" Witness: Yes. He added that he would, have been willing to come under the Act at a rental of tis, because land had then gone up in price. Since then he had further improved the farm by logging, burning and ploughing, he valued the improvements to-uay at £5 10s per acre. The land was suitable for dairying.

Mr Welsn : What improvements would be required to be put on the land if you wished to bring it into dairy tanning?

witness: It would require from £4 to £4 10s. Assuming ne had a lease under the 1892 Act he would bring the land into dairying. Replying to Air Bell, the witness said although he knew when he took up the lease that the improvements were limited to £5 per acre, it would pay him to value tnem at over the limit.

Replying to the Chairman, the witness said he knew tne conditions of the 1892 Act, but at that time it would not have paid him then to come under the Act. He was fairly conversant with the conditions at tno time.

Henry Parker Best, farmer, residing at Normanby, deposed that he was a lessee under the Act of 1881, and his selections were section 17, block 14, section 14, block 14, Ngaere. He was not an original lessee. The first section he bought 24 years ago; the other 20 years ago. When he purchased the sections he was aware of the limitation as to improvements, and understood the lessees were to be paid for bushfelling, fences, and buildings. When he purchased his land section 17 had 20 acres felled and a ring fence, while the other section was ail felled. In 1893 he took steps to convert his lease, but did not go on with it as his rent wtuld be too high. It was 2s whey he got the land, but on the revaluation made, if he had converted, it would have been 3s od. In 1892 he had to do laboring work to keep tho land going. Had he known in* 1900 of the benefits similar to the 1892 Act he would have converted his lease. His improvements at the present were, he considered, worth £6 per acre on one section and £5 on another.

Arthur Newall, farmer, Fraser road, said he was an original lessee under the 1881 Act, and took up the. land in 1883. His section was 17, block 2, Hawera, and his rent was 2s per acre. He knew that the value of improvements was to oe limited to £5 per acre, but expected to be paid for all improvements. It was all bush land when he took up the land in 1883, but it was now felled, and his improvements would be valued at £6 per acre. He knew of the right of conversion in 1893, and took steps to convert, but did not complete because he found that his rent would be too high. His rent was fixed at 3s 6d on the basis of o per cent of the unimproved value. After that date he was not aware that he had subsequent rights of conversion, but had heard of it since these proceedings had commenced. Had he in 1900 known of the right to convert he would have taken advantage of it, because he would then have been in a better position financially. In 1892 the land was not paying for itself. He used the land for dairying, and could spend more money on it to make it more profitable. By Mr Bell: The reduced rent for the period of five years was Is 6d. Had he converted in 1900 he would have expected to pay on the basis of five per cent on the unimproved value, provided the value was reasonable, but he could not say what the value would have been. Albert Palmer, farmer, of Fraser road, owner of section 16, block 2, Hawera, said he was not an original lessee, but had the land since 1886. When he took up the land there was only a little over two ' acres felled. To-day the land was all grassed, and he valued his improvements at £8 or £9. He did not convert his lease in. 1892 because he was not in a position to do so; it was not till recently that he knew of the extended rights to convert, and he would have converted his lease in 1900 had he known about it then. William Kelly, Ngaere, said he P.d 114 acres under the Act of 1881. and that he was an original lessee. The land was all in heavy bush when he went on to it in 1886, and he then understood that he' was to be paid for all improvements, and did not know they were to be limited to £5. Eis improvements he now valued at about £8 per acre. The first he knew of any right of conversion was two or three years ago. If he had been aware of the right to convert in 1900 he could not say whether he would have taken the advantage of the Act; he" might, have done so had the valuation beej* v similar to that in 1892. jT Mr Charles Andrews, at his ow^request, was recalled, when he sa'id'her wished to state that lie did not' under-

stand the lease until it was explained to him by his wife. Edwin Reuben Hastie, Otakeho, farn.ei, said that he was a lessee under the Act of 1881," owning section 33, block 2, Waimate district, comprising 500 acres. His lease expired in July, 1909. His land was re-offered at auction, when he was successful in gaining the lease. The rent under the old lease was Is per acre for the first seven years, 2s for the next seven years, and 5s for the last seven years. He acquired the lease from Mi-; Alexander Millen in 1897, who informed him that he was to receive, at the end of the term, full compensation for all improvements. He also told him that the lease, had twelve years to run. When he went over the place with his father, Mr Millen valued the improvements, and he (Mr Hastie) paid him £2200. When he took posses- I sion of the place it had improvements worth £2000, but the arbitrators did not allow him anything for improvements in the nature of manuring to the ground, worth from £700 or £800. Mr Millen made no representations to him regarding the right to convert the lease under the Act of 1892. He first knew about this in 1905 from Mr Fisher, and on looking through his lease, which had been deposited at the bank in connection with the sale of the lease, he was surprised to find that he had no right of renewal at the end of the term. He thought when he took the land he was to be paid for "all" improvements. He had spent £2000 in improvements which were valued at £1000. „ Mr Welsh: Had you been aware in 1897 that you were limited to" £5 petacre would you have spent that additional sum of money in improving your land? Witness: Certainly not. Could farming operations as conducted by you at that time be carried on without the expenditure of that money ? —Yes. Witness, in the course of further examination, said he was aware in 1900, that he could have converted, but explained that to do so would have cost him £1300. In 1900 he valued his improvements at £5 per acre, and to improve his land now would require a ■further expenditure of £2000; he went into details making up the total, which included 200 acres which would cost £5 per acre more to bring under the plough and put down in grass. He also said that there were some occupation licenses in the district, and some of the natives appeared to be farming their land well. With reference to this matter of occupation holdings it was subsequently arranged that a return would be submitted to the Commission by the Public 'Trustee. Witness was cross-examined at length by Mr Bell, who endeavored to prove that Mr Hastie, in his own particular case, had not been misled by the lease. Witness admitted to the Chairman that when he put the lease into the bank in 1897 he had uot read It. Mr Bell: Then you were not misled by it? Witness: If you put it that way, no. He added that it was probably through ignorance or carelessness that he had not read it; he relied on his father. The first time he read the lease was in 1905, when he had a conversation with 'Mr Fisher. However, he understood j that he was to be paid for his improvements and that he had the right of perpetual renewal. Replying further to Mr Bell he considered the rent he was now paying 16s 6d, was a fair figure, and not an excessive one. He did not receive any circular in 1908 as to the right of conversion. By Mr Welsh: In coming under the Act of 1892 he was looking to a. perpetual lease and one that he could call his home. This concluded the evidence for the day, and the Chairman then said the Commission would sit in Opunake on Wednesday, and would return to Hawera on Wednesday, May 21. The official interpreter, Mr C. W. P. Reon, adjourned the Court, informing the natives of the, other sittings in the Maori language.