LAND BALLOTS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXIII, Issue 15919, 3 May 1912, Page 9

LAND BALLOTS.

A QUESTION OF REGULATIONS. SUPREME COURT DISCUSSION. . [Per Press Association.] TIMARU, May 2. Mr Justice Denniston's reserved judgment in an appeal against a decision of the Canterbury Land Board in a land ballot case in February, 1911, has been received. The appeal was heard in February last, but judgment was delayed at the request of the parties in view of a possible settlement. In February 1911 tho leases of a number of Mackenzie pastoral runs were ballotted for, and' there wore many applicants. Two marbles were drawn in each case, so that the second applicant could be ready if the first failed to appear and complete the transaction." In the case of the Whalesback run. of 14,5,00 acres, tho person called on the first marble drawn was not present or represented, but an unauthorised friend offered to pay the doposit at, once and also asked for time to communicate with the applicant. Tori minutes were allowed, and within that time an authorised agent appeared and completed ' tho bargain. The drawer of the second marble appealed against this, as tho regulation says that the deposit must be paid " immediately."

On this, the main point at issue, his Honor held that " immediately " in tho regulation, did not mean " instantor." If it did, it might bo ultra vires. The word must bo construed with reference to the object of the rule and the circumstances of the case. He thought tho time allowed was reasonable and proper, if it were a question for the Court, but really it was left to the discretion of the officer presiding at the ballot. Judgment was for the respondent, with ten guineas costs. Mr Solomon, K.C., with him Mr Kinnernev, appeared for the appellant, and Mr Raymond, with him Mr Rolleston, for the respondent.