APPEAL FROM THE WARDEN COURT REFFTON.

Inangahua Times, Volume IV, Issue 1, 11 April 1877, Page 2

APPEAL FROM THE WARDEN COURT REFFTON.

THOMAS KAIL JPPBLLAHr, ANTOHT KATIB BESPOIfDBHT. This is an appeal from a decision of Mi : Warden Shaw, Katet's information in the Conrt below states :— " That flail on or about the 12th day of June last encroached upon and interfered witll bis business site in the town of Beefton by making application to purchase the same and succeeded by misrepresentations and otherwise in so doin?." At the hearing the learned Wawten const Jered the case proved and assessed damage at £25, Against this judgment Hall appealed, because the complaint disclosed, as he maintained, no cause of nction 5 yet if it did the evidence failed to warrant the damage assessed. The misrepresentations, pointing to occupation I by the defendant, appear to have been made I to the warden for the* avowed purpose of ' inducing the Nelson Wjste Lands Board to ' sell the laud to him under the provisions of of the 107 section of the Nelson Waste Lands Act, 1871 ; and assuming for prrscnt purposes, that through the Warden, such were made to the Board, the question arises — can the appellant be made liable to Kater for then ? The Section referred to professer to enable the Board " if they shall think fit" to fr*il by private contract Town lands withdrawn from * proclaimed gold field and open for sale, to one who has occupied under a business license for a term mentioned therein 111 my opinion the Board U not bound to dispose of Town Lands to its occupies by private sale. It was doubtless intended that concessions should be made to those distarbed in their occupancy under a feoslneaa license, yfifc I think that if onlf 5 for the protection of the Revenue a discretionary power as to the mode and ti,nefor sale wae lefo with the Board. If that be a correct interpretation of the section, Kater simply enjoyed a privilege common to all of applying to. the Board for the land in question. The method of sale might, and probably woald btf determined upon the representations made by the applicant, bat although misrepresentations fraudulently made might afleet 1 the contract made b« the Board thereupon, the land being •v»iaNe for all, the actual occupier would be without redress for the loss sustained by him, through the perpetration of the wrong (to the Board). But even if the occupiers were absolutely entitled to purchase the fee simple in the land, can he support the present action, against a third party for the deprivatkm— through hito^df that right? Injured by the loss of the property, his remedy would, in my opinion, .Ut against the Board for a breach of their obligations to him, and not against the defendant, whose imposition rendered a rompliamfr with the law impossible by the Board. Atlfr Button remarked, the loss complained of l|Hs within the description of damWm aba&T i*j*ri*> wiu* «*»** become the gfound of an tctwn. I &»* indeed the learned Wafdeninmlhavi l entertained that opinion unknown to Matelf, inasmuch as be assessed bis «««•£» < \ef roneously m must be, I tbinkyi »*mitted) not b reality for the wrongs alleged in the ujformation, but for an actual entry made, subsequent to, and longafter their commission. The question of th^arden'sjiinsticfc^was not raised upon *#.!, •■*■«? i *sE*s from the interpretation of the 63 "•*»«[ tho Ctoldßelds let, I think the first ground Z been su-tained, and thatthe verdictm the Court below owitt be reversed, and entered for the defendant. Question of costs to be argued at Beefton.