ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9277, 24 April 1891, Page 4

ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

AN ENQUIRY TO HE HELD, A special meeting of the Lmd Board was held at 2 o’clock yesterday afternoon to coneider a case of alleged darmnyism with regard to a section in the Maugahao Block. There were present—Messrs J. W. A. Marohant (Commissioner), W. A. FitzHerbert, W. W. McCardle, and D. H. Macarthur, M.H.R. The Commissioner stated that the first intimation ho hod about the case was a letter from the Under-Secretary of Crown Lands, which he had received on March 3rd. The letter was as follows : —“ Will you please report on the following case : —The late Dr Williams waa selector of section 61, block VIII., Maugahao, 175 acres. Before his death Dr Williams told several that Charles Beetham bad arranged with him for it through Tosswill (solicitor), of Fahiatua, and that it was got in the name of Henry Ratsey. Ratooy, who is Beefcbacn’s cook, has now made application to acquire the title, and the Land Board has sanctioned it. Apparently there could be no clearer case of dutnmyism. Once acquired by Ratsey the title will be transferred to Beetham. The late doctor told plenty o! the arrangement. “Iwant to submit the facts to the Hon Minister of Lands on his return to Wellington with a letter, which be has received, from which the foregoing is an extract,— H. J. Elliott.”

In reply the Commissioner wrote to the Under-Secretary furnishing the following particulars:—“The section was selected and taken up on the perpetual lease system by Dr Henry Williams, of Woodville, on the 2nd September, ISS6. There were other applicants, but Dr Williams was the successful one, as determined by ballot. On the 2nd of November, ISS9, Dr Williams applied to transfer the section to C. E. Beetham. but tho application was withdrawn next day. On the 2tith of November. .1889, Dr Williams applied to bo allowed to transfer to Mr H. Ratsey. The Board approved, and the transaction waa completed. On the Sth of April, IS9O, Mr Ratsey applied to transfer hia interest to Mr Norman Boetham. The Board refused to allow the transfer, as no sufficient reason was given. On the 23rd of May, 1890, Mr Ratsey gave additional reasons, and after several interviews and some correspondence, 1 laid the case before the Board, and pointed out that tho Messrs Beetham had several other sections adjoining, and were evidently displacing the small holders. There, upon the Board refused to allow the transfer. On the 15th of December 1890 Mr Ratsey applied to be allowed to pay oil and obtain the title to the land. The Board approved of this on the 26th February. 1 have to state that tho Land Board were not anraio that Mr Kataoy and Dr Williams had entered into an arrangement with Mr C. Beetham, and that Mr Ratsey was cook to him. Though tho Board considered the ease one of speculation, they had no evidence on which to take action against Mr Ratsey, Now, however, the case is different. I have, therefore, the honour to request that you will furnish the name of the writer of the letter you quote from, as I have no doubt the Land Board will hold an enquiry into the case as it is on© they have in view.” The Commissioner also forwarded copy of resolution of the Boardito the effect that it was decided not to issue the title to Mr Ratsey until the Minister had an opportunity of communicating with the Board on the matter.

On the Cfch April a reply was received from the Minister stating that before the title was issued an enquiry must be held by the Board, and the Crown Prosecutor was to be employed to conduct the enquiry on behalf of the Lauds Department. A report was also read from Mr H. J. Lowe, assistant ranger, stating that the section was transferred from Williams to Ratsey on the 13th January, 1890. On the 18th March, 1889, Mr Mackay inspected the section, and found 50 acres in grass, which he valued at (JOs per acre. Ho reported that there was no division between sections 50 and 51, or between 51 and tho village settlement, and that the sheep running on section 50 could run all over section 51, and did so. The settlers’ cattle could also run over section 51, and did so, No one lived, or ever had lived on section 51, and no one in the locality seemed to know Mr Ratsey. In a later report, Mr Lowes stated that a Mr Hughes, of Pahiataa, had assured him that he acted as agent for Mr Beeiham, and also for Mr Ratsey in the matter of bush felling, fencing, and stock. He reported that the cattle from sections 50, 64, 53, etc., which had been there for over six months, and which belonged to Mr Beefchom, had free range over section 61, there being no division fence yet. The same remark applied to the sheep, some of which, Mr Hughes stated, belonged to Mr Ratsey. In concluding, Mr Lowes stated that be had been unable to proved whether Ratsey was a dummy or not, but ho thought the case was evidently one for enquiry. These, the Commissioner stated, were the whole facts of the case. The question for the Board to consider was whether an enquiry should be held into the case.

Mr Maoarthur thought they should bold an enquiry, and if Mr Ratsey could prove he was innocent then the title could be issued. Mr McCardle said there was no other course open. The Board, he thought, should insist open the production of the letter. Mr Fitzherbert said it appeared to him that if this was dummyism every man who transferred his section was a dummy. Mr Maoarthur thought they should hold an enquiry in justice to Mr Ratsey. Mr Fitzherbert said it seemed that if a man selected a piece of land, made improvements on it, and then applied for hiu title, he was a dummy, No man could be con* sldered safe.

Mr Macarthur moved that an enquiry should be held.

Mr McCardle said they must have the writer of the letter. He thought the Minister should consider it partof*bis duty to see that the letter was produced. Mr Macarthur thought they should have the accuser before the other parties were called on. Let him come there aud lay his charge. They might after all find that the whole thing was moonshine. said it was as bad as taking notice of an anonymous letter. Mr Macarthur : Anonymous so far as we are concerned. He again urged that the enquiry should not be b?guu until the man who made the charge was present. Mr McCardle thought they should go on with the enquiry, even if the Minister failed to produce the letter, in order to give the other parties concerned an opportunity of clearing themselves. Mr Macarthur said they could compel the production of the letter. The Commissioner pointed out that he had written to the Minister asking for the name of the writer. The Minister in hia reply had not refused to give the name, but had avoided all reference to it. After farther discussion the following resolution was passed on the motion of Hr Macarthur, seconded by Mr McCardle, ** That an enouiry be held into the case of Mr H. Ratsey, the selector of section 1, block VIII., Mangahao Survey District, and that the Commissioner summon as witnesses the undermentioned persons ; H. Ratsey, E. G. Beetham, J. Hughes, and H. J. Lowe, . the Secrete ry for Crown Lands or other proper officer to produce the letter mentioned in Mr Elliott’s memo, of the 3rd March, aud also any other person the Commissioner may thick necessary for the inquiry ; the date to be Friday, May Ist, 1891, at 10 a.m.” The Commissioner was also empowered to incur the necessary expense in compelling the attendance of the necessary witnesses. The Board then adjourned.