A SETTLER'S DIFFICULTY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15262, 28 March 1913, Page 5

A SETTLER'S DIFFICULTY.

RESIDENCE ON HIS SECTION.

. LAW > MUST BE OBEYED. [BY TELEGRAPH. — CORRESPONDENT.] Wellington, ' Thursday. What wag claimed to be a typical case of failure of a Crown settler to reside on his holding under the Lands for Set? tlement Act came before the District Land Board to-day. It was stated that complaints had been received from settler? oa lands for settlement lands near Masterton that a settler was not living permanently on his holding, but in Masterton. The holder attended in person apply iffg for exemption, ip orde& that he could hold his land and yet Reside near Masterton. His holding was 13 miles from Masterton, but he had a family of grown-up daughters, who found occupations in Masterton, which they could not do if they were compelled to reside on the lands for settlement holding. He lived there three days a week on an average. The applicant said further that he thought he was complying with the Act. From the farm he derived his sole source of income, and it was the only occupation he had. The commissioner said all that was beside the point. What was being done was absolutely contrary to the law. A Genuine Settler. ■ Mr. Ellingham, a member of the board, said the applicant had bought five acres close to Masterton,, so that his daughters would get occupations in the town. He had known the settler for many years. He was an 'excellent settler. Althoughhe was not living on his section, he was to all intents ana purposes living on it, and making his living off it. He was certainly complying with the spirit of the Act, if not with the letter. A Dangerous Precedent. The commissioner observed that if this kind of thing were permitted a man might live in town and take, up a .block of land, work it, and make a, living off it, and declare he was making a living out of it. Still he would not De complying with the Act, and that was what the board had to see was being done. The commissioner further stated that, according to the law, every applicant for an allotment under the Lands for Settlement Act must reside continually thereon, "I hold," he went on, "that no man has a right to take up such land unless he complies with the conditions." Applicant: .I ~ have explained my circumstances, and think- the board should give me consideration. " If not, then I fear I will have to eive it up. Mr. Dawson said if the Act. could be relaxed he felt sure they would get better settlers and fewer speculators. The applicant had a large family of girls, and one knew how difficult it was to keep them on a farm. The applicant had been 40 years in the Dominion, and was a genuine pioneer settler. There were plenty of residents on their sections who were not a benefit to the Dominion, but mere speculators. Hardship of the Case. The commissioner said there was no doubt, about it that it was hard that exemption could not be granted. After what Messrs. Ellingham and Dawson had said it was clear that the applicant was a good settler, but if exemption were granted in this case then others would have to be similarly , dealt with, and so the whole system would go by tie board. There was another point, too. The applicant took up the tone that he had no intention of complying with the Act. The applicant said he had no intention of giving offence to the board.' What he meant was if there - was- no alternative to oontinuous residence, on the section .he would not take his family there. The commissioner said he thought applicant should be compelled to reside on his section, and he moved accordingly. . The motion was held over in order that it I could' be dealt with in committee, Messrs. Georgetti and McLellan both expressed their vi-iws in favour cf the Act being carried out, however much they might sympathise with the applicant, otherwise they feared that an undesirable precedent would be set up. ,