AKAROA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 99, 27 November 1852, Page 7

AKAROA.

[From a Correspondent.]

The proceedings of the Commissioner of Crown Lands at Akaroa, to which we alluded a short time ago, have been brought at last to an issue by a trial which took place on the 18th inst. in the Resident Magistrate's Court. It appears that a Mr. Doyly selected a fifty acre section of land at Akaroa, which was surveyed, and regularly conveyed to him by the Canterbury Association. A part, or the whole of this piece of land was claimed by the Commissioner as Crown Land, and, acting upon the Crown Lands' Ordinance, he proceeded to seize it; warning Mr. Doyly that he must give up possession. Mr. Doyly replied by laying an information against Colonel Campbell, for damage done to his property by trespass, in the persons of the two bailiffs who effected the seizure. Mr. Watson, the Resident Magistrate at Akaroa, objected to receive the information on the ground that he has a section of land at Akaroa to which a claim of the same nature might be laid by the Commissioner, and that he was, therefore, indirectly interested in the case. The matter, therefore, stood over until the arrival of three Magistrates from Lyttelton, before whom the case was tried on the 18th instant. The case commenced by Colonel Campbell admitting the fact of the trespass, and that the bailiffs acted under his orders, in entering upon the land. Mr. Doyly then put in his conveyance from the Association, and stated upon oath that the trespass had been committed upon the land consigned by that deed. Colonel Campbell read out a paper to the Magistrates in which he denied the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate's Court to interfere with his proceedings.

Mr. Fitzgerald who acted as chairman of the bench, said the Magistrates had fully considered the point raised before coming into court, and were unanimously of opinion that the Resident Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction, referring both to the Resident Magistrate's Ordinance and to the Crown Lands' Ordinance as settling this point.

Colonel Campbell said that he denied the jurisdiction altogether, and would not make any defence whatever to the action.

Mr. Fitzgerald said if the defendant took this course, the Bench had no option : they must give judgment for the plaintiff with costs. Colonel Campbell still said he would not make any defence other than which he had done.

The Chairman.—l dont know whether you clearly understand the result of the course which you are taking; the case comes before us simply as one of damage, with which we are bound to deal—we could not refuse to do so. If it should turn out that the case involves a difficult point as to a disputed title to land, it might be the duty of the Bench to postpone their judgment till they have the assistance of the law officers of the Crown or of a Judge of the Supreme Court, but if the defendant refuses to go into the case at all, judgment must be entered against him, as a matter of course. And more than that, it is of course competent to any one to bring a similar action against the defendant, and if he pursues a similar course, judgment will go against him in every case.

Colonel Campbell still said he was fully aware of what he was doing, but that he would not say anything else.

The Court then gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs. Colonel Campbell said he would not pay the money, and the Magistrates ordered a distress warrant to be issued immediately.

The question is thus brought to an issue, whether it is in the power of a most surprisingly incapable man to - seize the properties of her Majesty's subjects at his own discretion. This case, is not one between prior claimants and those under the Association. If Mr. Doyly's land had been claimed by an old settler, the Commissioner could not have entered on it by force, as the land would have been the claimant's and not the Crown's. But the Commissioner claims this as Crown land. It is a question between Mr. Doyly and the Crown. If the Canterbury Association have issued titles to lands which they had no right to dispose of, which is quite possible, that title must be set aside by a competent, legal tribunal, not by the arbitrary acts of a Crown officer. If an officer of the Crown is entitled to seize any land and pronounce it Crown land, where is the limits of his power of dispossessing private persons of their property ? A complete stop has now, however, been put to these proceedings,

and the Commissioner will, no doubt, he compelled in future to bring disputed questions of this kind into a proper court of law.