WELLINGTON LAND BOARD.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1157, 4 May 1894, Page 6

WELLINGTON LAND BOARD.

The regular meeting of the Wellington Land Board was held last week. Present —The Commissioner (in the chair) and Messrs W. A. Fitzherbert, T. W. Fisher, A. W. Hogg, M.H.R., and Fred Parani, M.H.R. Mr Richmond, solicitor, waited upon the Board in reference to Mr Saxelby's lease, and offered to pay the expense of getting the Crown Solicitor’s opinion as to whether a title granted could be rescinded and a transfer issued instead. The offer was accepted. An explanation was read from Mr Ellis, of Waverley, with regard to his applying for a village homestead section while he was the occupier of a hotel. The letter was very flowery, varying from poetical quotations to such strong terms as “ baiefaced falsehood,” and in it Mr Ellis said his wife was tho owner of the hotel and everything in it. He stated, somewhat forcibly, that he would withdraw his application. It was decided to return tho deposit money and accept the surrender. Tho Commissioner explained that Messrs Watt and Ruddick, whoso names were drawn at the second ballot,would take up the section. It was decided to call Mrs Ellen Hughes’ attention to the fact that although she was tho successful applicant for Section sa, Momohaki Village Settlement, it was understood her husband owned land, and to ask for an explanation. The following applications for land were agreed to:—Henry Loveday, Section 6, Makohine; Sven Gundersen, Section 2, Block X., Mikimiki; Joseph Tyson, Section 28, Block XIV., Tararua; Thos. McFadden, Section 29, Block XIV., Tararua; William Bray, Section 30, Block XIV, Tararua; D. D. Grant, Section 1, Mangamahu; W. C. Ordish, Section 4, Block X., Tiffin. In consideration of the special circumstances, it was to pass T. Faulkener’s title for Sections 1432 and 1434, Bunnythorpo, The application of M. Shannan for title for Section 13, Block XIII., Makuri, was referred to the ranger for report. It was decided to grant the application of D. Jones for title for Section 57, Block VII., Apiti, on receiving declaration that the improvements short were completed. The following applications to capitalise were granted:—C. T. Lloyd, Section 3, Block XII, Apiti; C. Groom, sen., Section 57, Block VII., Ongo; J. G. and R. H. Browne, Section 44, Block X., Pohangina. Tho following applications for titles were approved:—C. T. Lloyd, Section 3, Block XII., Apiti; C. Groom, senr., Section 57, Block VII., Ongo; C. Pollock, Section 20, Block IX., Pohangina; C. Briggs, Sections 6 and 7, Block 111., Mangaone; A. von Reden, Section 2, Block X., Mangaone; P. Oliver, Section 1, Block XII., Haurangi; J. H. Cooksley, Sections 1407, &c., Bunnythorpe; G. Parr, Sections 1259, &c., Bunnythorpe; E. Faulkner, Sections 1428, &c., Bunnythorpe. Titles to be approved if conditions complied with: —E. Cannell, Section 7, Block XV., Ongo; D. and R. D. McKenzie, Section 88, Block V., Kopuaranga. Application for title refused— G. Perry, Section 41, Block HI., Apiti. Transfers were approved as follow:—W. Mason to T. Powell, Section 3, Block XIV.,

Tiriraukawa; R. Scandlyn to R. Scaudlyn and W. T. Morpeth, Section 4, Block XV., Ifautapu; R. H. Hurst to R. Old, Section 58, Block VII., Apiti; E. V. Hunt to It. E. Homblow, Section 9, Block IV., Mikimiki; C. A. Trengrove to A. S. London, Section 1., Block XVIII.

Transfers refused were—B. Kerrins, Section 63, Block V., Mangaone ; H. E. Eton, Section 65, Block XIV., Mangaho; W. Henson, Section 45, Block 11., Kopuaranga. It was decided to approve of the following conversions from perpetual lease to leases in perpetuity : —C. Forsberg, Sections 13 and 14, Kopuaranga; G. F. Day, Section 100, Block 11., Kopuaranga. A letter was roceived from tho Undersecretary for Lands, in reference to the conversion of sections in village settlements to leases in perpetuity, stating that the department is advised that clauses 7 and 8 of the 48th section of “ The Land Act, 1892,” only apply to cases which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Land Board, and not to village sections, tho regulations of which ovor-rido the powers of the Board. The decision of the Supreme Court in Gormloy v. Mclntyre was quoted to show that the class of land referred to was taken out of tho hands of the Board.

Mr Pirani did not see how the judgment applied to conversions to lease in perpetuity at all, as by the Land Act of 1892, passed six years after tho regulations, special powers were given to the Board in this matter.

The Commissioner remarked that the decision of the Judge was quoted to show that matters connected with village settlements could be dealt with by the Commissioner only. It might be advisable to get an opinion from the Supreme Court on the matter.

Mr Hogg said it was not for the Board to go to any expense to obtain a legal opinion. It was a cruel thing to treat small settlers who had applied for conversion six months ago in tho manner under notice, especially when holders of large areas of land as grazing runs could get the concession. Mr Fitzherbert considered tho conversions could only be granted by the Board. Mr Hogg asked who was going to rule—was the Under-Secretary’s authority going to be put up before that of the Board ? If that was the case tho Board had better give all its functions up to him. He was sorry Parliament was not sitting so that the question could be fought out in tho proper place. He could not believe the Minister of Lands was cognisant of this matter.

Mr Fisher reminded the Board that the Minister of Lands had told them that the Under-Secretary was simply acting under his instructions.

The Commissioner remarked that it was a good deal a question of revenue, as under the lease in perpetuity a third of the revenue went to the local bodies, which was not the case under the village settlements.

Mr Hogg pointed out that the Board had decided to issue the new leases. It had come to this, that before the Board could move in any direction the members must go to Mr Barron or Mr McKenzie, go down on their knees and ask how to act. The Commissioner said it would be very objectionable for the Commissioner to have the sole power to grant transfers, for applicants would never be satisfied with his decisions.

Mr Fisher remarked that under section 150 of the 1892 Act, the local bodies would obtain thirds even from special settlements.

It was resolved unanimously, on the motion of Mr Hogg, seconded by Mr Pirani, that the Minister of Lands be informed that the Board considers, under section 150 of the Land Act, that villago settlers are entitled to conversion to lease in perpetuity, and that immediate steps be taken to give effect to such decision. On the motion of Mr Pirani, seconded by Mr Hogg, it was also unanimously resolved, that the Board does not consider that tho judgment referred to in the Under-Secre-tary’s letter of 10th April affects the rights subsequently given to convert such leases by the Land Act of 1892, passed subsequent to the gazetting of tbe regulation of 1886.

An application was received from W. J. O’Donnell, secretary Palmerston North Forest Reserve Settlement, for the proportion of the expenses the Association incurred in respect to tho forfeited sections. It was decided to inform tho secretary that as no demand had been made before tho salo of the forfeited sections, tho Board could not entertain the request.

The Commissioner stated that about 80 selectors in special settlements had applied to surrender. It was decided to defer consideration of the matter till noxt meeting. Regarding the question of the surrender of Mr Riddiford's interest in a small grazing run, tho Under-Secretary wrote to tho effect that tho Minister objected to tho surrender, but desired tho Board to forfeit.

It was decided to inform tho Minister of Lands that the Land Board submitted that they have done their duty in accepting tho surrender of Mr Riddiford’s lease of his small grazing run, as they considered there would be less trouble to the Department in doing so than in forfeiting his interest under section 216 of the Land Act, 1885, and recovering possession of the land as therein directed; and that the Board would respectfully point out that they had carefully inquired into the whole, case, and obtained a report from tho Stock Department which confirmed Mr Riddiford’s statement, and not believing that any violation of tho Land Act had knowingly been attended or intended, the question of residence only being involved, they did not consider that the value of the improvements should be forfeited to the Crown, and would have made the same recommendation under sections 218 and 219 of the Land Act, 1885, as they have already made, *had they forfeited his interest instead of accepting his surrender in tho first instance. In reference to the forfeiture of Section 4, Block VI., Makotoku Survey District, taken up by A. Craig, it was decided to call upon the selector to show reason why the section should not bo forfeited. The Commissioner informed the Board that the ranger had reported that sevorai selectors in the Wanganui United Special Settlement were allowing other persons to occupy their sections, and it was decided to ask for explanations. : It was decided to allow several settlers in arrear extension of time to effect improvements.

It was decided to inform J. W. Thurston, selector of Section 3, Block IV., Omahino, to submit feasible .proposals for carrying out his improvements within reasonable time, or his section will be forfeited. Mr Piiuni brought before the Board the advisability of vesting a gravel reserve of 17 acres, near Bunnythorpe, in the Manawatu Road Board, and it was decided to ask tho Commissioner to recommend that the land be so vested.

The Board decided to agree to the following applications to convert Mangahae Village Settlement holdings to leases in perpetuity: —L. Grant, J. A. Anderson, H. Stenberg, W. and A. Taggart, F. Helps, J. Niccol and J. Hislop. A number of deferred-thirds were approved for expenditure by the local bodies.

Mr Hogg brought up the question of tho Makuri valuations, and urged that tho Board should ask the Minister to tako steps to deal with tho grievance. Mr Pirani said that a deputation from tho Makuri settlers had waited upon him and expressed a desire to have an independent valuation made by the ranger, Mr Tone. The Commissioner stated that Mr Tone had gone through the valuations with himself, and expressed the opinion that in no case had the valuations been more than 2s 6d per acre over a fair valuation. /It was resolved, on the motion of Mr Hogg, seconded by Mr Fitzherbert, that the Minister of Lands be informed that in the opinion of this Board the present method of valuing bush land is not satisfactory; that the work of valuation should not be entrusted to surveyors who have to survey the block, but to experts qualified for the purpose by their knowledge of the geological structure and general character and features of the district j that in connection with bush lands, climate, altitude and contingency to railways, main roads and

markets, should have more consideration in determining values than thoy have received ; and that the system of classification according to values, and irrespective of quality, needs amendment. The Commissioner and Mr Fisher voted against the motion. The Board considered the position of the Sections 4 and 6, Block VIII., Kaurangi, forfeited by Messrs Samuels and Nathan, and it was decided to ask the Minister if ’ there is any objection to the Board putting them up for sale at an early date. Tho Board then adjourned.