BE-INVESTIGATION OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume III, Issue 872, 30 August 1866, Page 4

BE-INVESTIGATION OF COMPENSATION CLAIMS.

W.bksesi>ay, August 29. (Before Thomas Bcokham, Esq., R.M.) The Commissioner was in attendance at the usual hour. CLAIM OF S. A. OLDFIELD, WAIKATO. Thi» ca6e was firet called on, and Mr. Oldfield was anxious for settlement to get homo again, but Mr. Boardman recommended tho claimant to consent to an adjournment. He stated that a summons had been served at Mr. Oldfield's request, upon a gentleman residing at the North Shore who was down at the Waikato and eipectcd to return that day. Claimant was reeiding on native land— not confiscated land—and was acting as a common carrier in the Waikato, and aranng other things took Goret's printing press for the Government. Personally, ho was sorry for Mr. Oldfield, but there were principles involved. He would, therefore, recommend Mr. Oldfield to see his f> itness and have tho caee adjourned. Mr. Criipe, who appeared on hehalf of claimant, ■aid the witnesses who could have suDatantiated the claim were formerly friendly Maoris, hut wore now ■with the Hauhaus. Tho claim was originally considered a good one. Tho Commissioner romarked there was a question whether persons trading in the way claimant had 4one, that was, in conveying goods into an enemy's country, ought not to be included in the same catalogue as Mr. Young's case. With regard to reeiding on Maori land—a caeo had been decided by an officer on the part of Government, who had been Attorney-Goneral, that a gentleman who married a Maori wife and had lived on Native land, making improvements thereon, might be entitled to consideration. A subsequent claim for further losses was made and referred to him (tho Commissioner), and afterconsideration be decided to recognise theprinciple adopted in the former case, and reported accordingly. The view of this case, which he had originally formed was, that if the Government employed this man.

there was nothing wrong on hie part, and he was entitled to compensation, but if hn knew ho was breaking the law he was not entitled to consideration. With regard to adjourning claims, the Commissioner added that it was a great disadvantage to Mr. Koardaian to keep cases open, who waa anxious to get them settlod as soon as possible. His (tho Commissioner) own deeiro was to get tho claims settlodj as he had other things to attend to. The claim was then adjourned sins die. CLAIM OV Wit. SANDY, MAUKT7. Original claim £100 ss, award £1)5. William Sandy, sworn, said : I sold the grasa seed and hay to Mr. Constable, for £18, who cartod part of it off the ground. I sold it standing. I did not perform any labour in cutting tho grass, gouii'.j the seed, or curting it off the ground. I sold it iu September, ISG3. To Mr. Crispe : I estimated the value of tho seed at £120. The portion I sold made £15. To tho Commissioner: I sold sovon acrps of it. To Mr. 15o;irdman: I sold only part of tho soed. I could not get the remaining portion, as I was on vo'.untcor dutv, and could not get permission. Parties of volunteers" were allowed to go and cut thistlos. I was not permitted. Col bury cut the oats. I think Taylor cut tho soed. Air. Constablo's man cartod the seed. At the former examination I did not tell tho Commissioner I had eold my grass seed, I only told what I considered the value of what I lost. I had 2 acres of oats and [Q0 of grass seed. The whole farm is 40 acres.

Mr. Boardman, in commenting upon tho oviden e, said: In the original claim the farm was stated to be sixty acres in extent. Then, when tho Commissioner examined into it on the first hearing, the claimant eaid it was only forty acres. To show that this sixty ncres was not put down as a inoro error, wo have the items of which it is composed given, viz., 18 acres of grass and 13 rough feed, making tho original sixty claimed for. The amount put down as rough feed is two acres more than the ontire extent of tho farm. Today it is found convenient f> alter the claim again, and redii'o tho rough feed to '20 acres, so as with 18 of gruse and 2 of oats to make up 40 acres. Sandy states that he never stated his furin waa 60 acres. Mr. Crispe : The claimant had no intention to mislead. The claim hid been made out by himself, and tho error was undoubtedly mudo by him.

Mr. Boardman : This, then, only shows how little dependence can be placed on the accuracy of claims, when we are enabled to get nt tho real facts of the case. There ie a mistake made twice over of twenty acres in this claim. Then again Saudy had confessed I to selling his grass seed from tho land for which he claims for the same item to the oxtent of £i) 0. Ho first sells the seed, and then comes to tho Government to pay him for it a socond time, suppressing tho fact of the s:ile of any seed off that Und at tho first examination, and thus not what he was bound to do, to tell ttio while truth. If the Commissioner could not 500 his way to cut out tho claim altogether, lie would have a copy of the evidence given on both occasions made and laid boforo the Government, and would ask fjr au adjournment to produce other witnesses. The caso was then adjourned. CLAOI OV HSNBY BXELGAK. Original claim, £43; award, £.'35 10s. (>.l. Henry Snelgiir, on beinsr sworn, said : I was not livinn- on my place before July, 18G3 ; I stilted so on my former eximinition. I think there were from con to twelve acres in grass. Mr. who occupied tho land, paid me rent. I did not state sixty acres rough feed ; if it is so entered on my cluini it is a mistake. I said the remainder was rough feed. David Baldorston, eworn, said : I was living on Mr. Snelgar'e land in 1863, when the war broko out. To the best of my knowledge there were sixty-two acres, and about ten of it in grass. Taking the estimate of what was grass, as given yesterday, it was grass, but I would not call it grass myself: "it seemed to have been taken in that sense. Taking my viuw of the caso, there were only five acres of grass. The Commissioner said that pasturago, liko that mentioned, here and there a bUde of grass, w:u not what he considered grass pasturage. His intention all along was to allow for non-occupation of grassland that really was entitled to bcir th:it mmo. Ho understood it to mom enclosed paddocks, or fields that were covered with good turf.

Mr. Boardman said there was no doubt that tho Government hud to pay for some hundreds of acres, kjc iuo a M^ P ii.« that had beon alluded to—that really was not g ra i«—», ■—- n —•* r— * —

Examination continued: The house was in a tumble diwn condition. Tho woith, when I left it in 1833, was about £211. I would not have given that as it stood. Tliero were very {cw panes of I would not have rented the houso in the condition it was. The fencing when I «-i\s there was all down from dilapidation. When I left my contract was to get up tho fencing. I put up about twelve chains. Thi damage is merely a few panels, and cost £1 to repair it. Tlioro was an outhouse, but nearly down ; it was not dam*gocl to my knowledge. The wlolo aiFiir wug eo bad it could not havo been much damaged.

Mr. Boardman addressed the Court on tho merits of the claim.

The Commissioner reduced tho amount provieusly awarded by £-8 10*., leaving tho final award £7.

CLAIM OF Wit. WILLIAMS, MAUKU. Claim, £71 7s. Cd.; award, £15 10s.

Claimant, on being sworn, said: I live in Auckland, and did so in July, 18J3, as I stated before. I went down occasionally to soo it. I had no one residing thero. There are 79 acres in the farm, seven in grass. Tho whole is perfoctly good grass, with clover standing two feet high. It could havo been cut for hay, and was such a crop as the Commissioner alluded to just now. There was an ordinary bush-house, with shingled roof. I had tho goods mentioned thero. I was taken ill. I could not go down, as I intended to reside there. Ido not claim for furniture, oxcept bedding and cooking utonsila. I had no cattle. Tho seed was id store for Bpring growing. It was a dog-leg fence. The posts claimed for lay just as they were split. The fence was worth about 10s. a chain.

Mr. Balderston, who was in Court, etated that ho would not up a dog-leg fence for less than 10s. a chain. Mr. Finlay said ho piid 33. a chain, llr. Crispe said both might bo right, as it all depended on the Btrongth and straightness of the fence.

To the Commissioner : I was ou the farm 5 months, and carne back for mj family when I was taken sick. Thero was only Air. Crispe's son there when I returned. The Commissioner deducted £10, leaving the award £2G. CLAIM OF T. J. EOItINBON, MAVKU. Cliim £<il -'3.; award £57 10a. Thomas Joseph Robinson sworn, stated : I reside at the Mauku, and have land there. My house ie a stone's throw from Mr. Crispo's, a two-roomed houao, slab, with paling roof. The cattle, 18 month heifers, were grazing on the run. I could not get them, as I had to leave Mauku. Some goods wore removed from my house, but not all. If I had conveyances I could have got all away. T had upwards of 100 poultry, and got not more than three or four to Onehungu. The cottage was lined and papered in the bed-room. It was destroyed. I went back about two months ago. The rental of tho cottage I value at £8 or £10 a year.

Mr. Crispe and Mr. Boardman having addressed tho Court, the Commissioner deducted £7 10s from the claim. Final award, £02. claim: of b. d. c. tickebs, mh'eo. The hearing of this case was delayed a considerable time hy the non-appearance of Mr. S. Vickers, the father of tho claimant. Tho case was not concluded when the Court rose. As it was a somewhat important one, a full report will he given on Saturday. Tho Court adjourned to Friday morning