COMPENSATION COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume III, Issue 901, 3 October 1866, Page 4

COMPENSATION COURT.

Tuesday. (Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., K.M., Commissioner.) 1 The Court resumed its sittings at the usual hour this morning. The first case called on for hearing 3. was a J CLAIM OF THE I ATE JOSEPH ENGLAND. Mr. Crispe said he had made application to the Colonial Secretary for copy of a letter from the Governor, authorising the late Mr. England to re- ' side amongst the Maoris, and to teach tham how to 1 make shoes ; in reply he -was informed that no copy ■ could be found, either in the Colonial Secretary's e office, or in that of the Private Secretary. e The Commissioner said he would take the oppori tunity of looking over the notes, and give his deci- ! sion in a day or two. S CLAIM OF WILLIAM HTTNTEE, PAPAKURA. • The original claim was £175 10s. The award r £1-10. 0 Mr. Boardman toik exception to the award for r non-occupation for 12 months. e Mr. Hunter stated that his farm lay between s Mr. Ligar's and Mr. Cowley's, and consisted of _ 150 acres under cultivation. The bush coming from . the ranges to the house rendered it dangerous to occupy it He thought it might have been occupied £ at the same time as Cowley's. To Mr. Cri-pe : He did not think it could have been profitably occupied in less than 12 months. e The house was destroyed. ' The Commissioner reduced the award for nonoccunation, leaving the sum of £105. e CLAIM OP ELIZABETH GEOEGE, ONEHCXGA. Original claim, £l-*4 10s ; former award, £107. Mrs. Grant, on being sworn, said her son was 'f occupying the farm at Maungatatauri, and MrGraut stopped on the farm during_the war at his own risk and responsibility. „ David Grant, on being sworn, said he resided on , Mrs. George's farm in July, 18G3, and was acting j.' as manager of the farm. He left in August, 1865, and resided there all the intervening time. Thev kept cows, and did general farming wors. They s sold milk to the troops stationed at Quesii's Het doubt, Pokeno. The house was about half a mile a from where the troops were located. He shared the i. profits with Mrs. George ; they were equal sharers a in the profits. He paid Mrs. George once in twelve e months. He paid the first year's proceeds to her. >_ There was a house ; be was at part of the expense of building it. It was put up for him in May, 1868. The fencing destroyed in 1863 4 during th 1 war might be eight or ten chains. It was destroyed by the flying column. There were 1 not thirty chains destroyed during the war after ho went there. There could not have been 1 1000 rails and fences on the farm without his knowing t it. Tliey were not brought on the ground or cut e while he was there. There really was no grass. The 3 farm had not been occupied for about two years y when he weat. He could not say there were any padd' oks fenced. The fences were decayed and broken e down. There were not twenty acres in fair grass. P There miqht be fifteen acre 3. He could not tell the £ exact amount he paid to Mrs. George, but he paid Q the produce of the first year to her. j. To Mr. t rispe: He was employed by Mrs George, f and received half the profits. He occupied the whole farm, Mis. George agreeing to pay him 4s. a-day for " every day he worked. The arrangement was that > she should allow the use of half the produce of 6 cows f for his attendance. Sir was to be the start. Mrs. f George paid at the|close a balance of £ISO for labour 3 and work. That sum was spent partly in improve--5 ments. He only drew wages for six months, after . that he was content with half the profits of the r dairy. To Mr. Boardman : Whether he received or paid money he was absolutely occupying the farm from July, 1563 to 1855. Mrs. George supplied the cows , and divided tha proceeds. . To the Commissioner : The gross amount received J; for milk for the year was over £300. The milk was k sold at 6d. and 9d. aqu irt. The cows ran about 3 the country, there being no feed at home. 1 Thomas George, sworn, said the posts and rails 3 were on the roadside, placed there preparatory to being used for fencing about 32 chains - He was aware of the agreement with Mr. Grant, who was to 1 have one-half of the proceeds. The land wa3 in J good grass, but partly covered over with. fern, f To Mr. Boardman :I do not know the rails and posts were destroyed. I know they were removed. I believe they were there early in 1863. I saw 3 them in 18G1 or 1882. Thev were not there in July, ) 1863. i Mr. Crispe briefly addressed the Court, and said the witness Grant appeared to have some very confused notions as to the duties of a manager of a ' farm and a day labourer. As for the posts and rails, Mr. Grant stated that he had Been them on the ground. Mr. Boardman replied, and said the facts were so plain that it was supererogatory to occupy the time of the Court by dwelling ou them.' The witness Grant has clearly proved that there was an occupancy of the farm, and whilst he was giving his evidence Mrs. George had interrupted him by saying she was only to receive half the milk. That was an admission that she received a benefit from Grant's 3 occupation. The farm had been very beneficially I occupied, for the milk was sold at the highest rate that could be obtained in Auckland. The fencing, L according to Mrs. George's admission, was not on the ground before the date on which the Commissioner was authorised to investigate claims. The whoie claim was one he should not like to characterise as he wished to avoid the use of strong language, but it certainly was one of the worst claims that had come before the Court. If Mrs. George had been well advised she would have done as a noble lady had done, and withdrawn her claim. Her adviser, he felt persuaded, would have recommended that course if he had known the facts of the case. It was painful to do so, but he must say tlia whole claim ought to be disallowed. The Commissioner reviewed the proceedings and said, after the evidence adduced, the Court could not satisfy the award. The claim was therefore struck out. CLAIM OF WM. SELBY, OP MAUN&ATATJTABI. Original claim, £4SO 10s. Award, £237 10s'. The only question in this case was as to the occupation of the farm for part of the year. - The claimant, who conducted his own case, B hcw e d that his farm was in so dangerous a position that it couid not have been beneficially occupied for twelve months. £*o alteration was made in the award, with this exception : Owing to an error in the claim, £31 had been awarded too much. The final award, therefore, stood at £200 10s. CLAIM OP ROBERT RITCHIE, AWTTL*. Claim, £72 ; former award, £61 ; final award, £36. An amount for a cow in cif had been entered in the claim twice. This animal had been seen about a twelvemonth ago. and was not, therefore; lost during the war. The two sums were therefore deducted from the former award. CLAIM OF WM. HALL, MAUNSATAWHIHI. Original claim, £696 ; award, £i! 96: final award, £141. CLAIM OF Wil. MEATYARD, KUTHGATAWHIXI. Former claim and award, £1S 17s 8d; final awarJ, £18 17s Sd. No objection being raised by the Govemmert. The Court aojouimad at 3.30 until the following , day.