ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9284, 2 May 1891, Page 3

ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

THE CHARGE DISPROVED.

An enquiry into tho alleged case of dummyism in connection with Section 51, Block VIII., Mangabao, held by Mr H. Ratsey, was held by the Land Board yesterday morning. There were present—Messrs J. W. A. Merchant (Commissioner), W. A. Fitzherbert, \Y. VV. MoCardle, and A. W. Hogg, M.H.R. Mr H. Gully, Crown Prosecutor, conducted the examination of witneeeos. Mr M. Chapman appeared lor Mr Ratsey and Mr Toaawill, of Pabiatua, for Mr C. IS, Boetham. Henry Ratsey stated that he became tho holder of the section in November, 1889, having received the transfer from Dr Williams. He waa then, and waa still employed by Mr Beetham. Tho money in consideration of tho transfer was paid by Mr Beetham, hut he could not remember the amount. At this time witness had £SOO invested in land at Hastings, and he expected further money from Home. He had not got tho cash then, and the money was simply advanced by Mr Beetham. Witness gave Mr Beetham a security over his land at Hastings, Had not seen the land, nor knew nothing about It. He trusted it all to Mr Beotham. Waa aware that Section 51 was ( bordering on Mr Beetham’a land. Knew what improvements had to bo carried out, and alter he took tho land the improvements were proceeded with by Mr Boetham. The money for the improvements waa paid by Mr Beetham, who rendered the accounts to witness. Mr Beetham took charge of the whole affair, as if tho land was his. Witness wont on the land for the Bret time about a month ago—it might be longer. He would swear that be took up the section as a bonk tide applicant, and he intended to keep it. He had suggested to Air C. E, Beethsm that as the liabilities would be so large to carry out all that was required he should transfer it to Mr N. Beetham. Ho did not know why be had not proposed that he should transfer tho land tn Air C. E. Bsotham. The application was refused, and he then made up his mind to borrow the money to complete the freehold title and tho improve, meats. Witness had no stock ol his own on the property. Other people ran their stock over it. Mr C. E. Beetham had paid witness the rent of the section for allowing bis cattle and sheep to run over it. Witness had intended to occupy the section, and he had the same intention still. The bush was only felled last winter. There waa no building on Section 51. By Air Chapman : Had lived with the Alessrs Beetham for tho last 1-1 years. The land at Hastings had cost £430. When ho took up the section at Alangahao ho expected to receive some money from his father, but it did not come. Mr Beetham had then offered to assist him. By Mr Gully : Thero was only a verbal agreement in regard to Mr Beetham grazing bis stock on the land, Charles Edward Beetham stated that he was owner of several sections adjoining Section 51. Was aware that Section 61 was oconpiod by Ratsey, who got the transfer of it from Dr Williams. Witness was aware than an application had been made to transfer the seotion to himself before November, 1889, as agent for Ratsey. Dr Williams was to apply to the Board to transfer to him (witness) personally, but that was withdrawn, and the application for the transfer to Ratsey was substituted. Witness wanted it himself to complete the

block. He had arranged to buy Sections 50, 51, 53, 54, and 55 for Ratsey, He intended that Kstsey should be the purchaser, and ho (witness) was to bo the agent or trustee. Although purchased by him they wore intended to be held in trust for Ratsen. There was no declaration of trust propared. All the land had been used by witness’ stock, but only Section 61 was airanged for with Ratsey. Witness paid the rent to Ratsey, who paid it to the Department, There was no definite arrangement as to when witness was to hand over the section to Ratsey. Ho looked upon the section as Ratsey’s, and he (witness) was simply controlling it for him. Section 01 was purchased for £530, which sum witness advanced to Ratsey. Witness held the land at Hastings as security for the money lent. The value of the Hastings property was £SOO with improvements. Had every faith in Ratsey, and he had promised his father that he would help him. There was no building on section 51. There was a building on section 53. The arrangement that he could use section 51 was to cease any day Ratsey wished. There was no lino of fencing between sections 50 and 51, iSy Mr Chapman ; At the time be had purchased Ratsey’s section he had not purchased section 1. There was no reason why ha or bis brother should have purchased section 51. Bad written to Ratsey’sfather tollinghim that he bad purchased the section for bis son. Ratsey’s father, in the reply, stated that ho wished to help hla son, but he did not wish to find such a largo amount, as any money be got then would be deducted from what would coma to him at the time of bis (Ratsey's, sen.) death. As he could see that ' Ratsey had not enough money to improve 440 aorea ho (witness) arranged to keep the freehold lands and let Ratsey keep section 61. The transfer to Norman Beetham was asked for by Ratsey. Witness demurred, but Ratsey persisted, and the tranafer w»a applied for. When it was refused witness made the arrangement with Ratsey that ho must go on holding the section, and be (witness) would make the payments and look to Mr Ratsey, sen., for a refund. In reply to Mr Merchant the witness stated that it was still bis intention to help Ratsey to settle on section 51. John Hughes, J.P., of Pahiatua, stated that be had acted as agent tor Mr C. E. Beetham, who had asked him to supervise the improvements on section 51 and others. Coaid not say what amount had been ex. pended on improving the land. All his communications were directly with Mr Beetham and not with Mr Mr Ratsey, although be knew that the latter was the owner of the property. Henry James Lowe, surveyor, stated that he had Inspected the land about two weeks ago. Prom 48 to 50 acres wore in grass on the eastern side. Cattle were running on the adjoining sections, and as there was no dividing fence there was nothing to prevent them going on Section 61. A. K. Maokay, Crown Lands Ranger, said that the improvements on the land were valued at £355 10s a abort time ago.

John Close, Henry Firmston, Gordon Crosbie, and George Baintou also gavo evidence.

The Commissioner stated that he had subpoenaed a number of other witnesses, but Mr Gully did not intend to call them. Mr Chapman asked who bad initiated the proceedings ’ Mr Gully said they wore initiated by the Board. He did not propose to show from whom the Board had obtained its informa* tion. All tho information in the bands of the authorities bad been given.

Mr Chapman said if it could be shown that the proceedings were dictated by malice it would be a circumstance in his client s favour.

MrTosswill asked if a witness bad been subpeenned to produce a certain letter in the hands of the Minister of Lands. Tho Commissioner stated that he had summoned Mr Fcrcy Smith to produce the letter, but in reply ho bad reoaived a com. munioatiou stating that as the letter was in tho hands of the Grown Solicitor, who would bo present at tho onrjuiry, there would bo no necessity for his attendance. Mr Gully said if tho Board asked him to produce Hie letter be would have something to say, but ho did not consider that Mr Tosswill had any right to ask for it. Mr Tosswill asked the Commissioner why tho letter was not produced. That letter had initiated tho whole proceedings, and if it had not been written there would have been no enquiry. His client had a right to know why tho letter was not produced. Mt Gully did not see any reason for bringing the letter into the question. It bad nothing to do with the fasts. Tbs Commissioner said it did now appear absolutely neocssary that tho letter should bo produced. The Board, however, could come to a decision on tho ease, and, if they thought it was necessary to have tho name of the writer of tho letter, they could ask for it.

Mr Gully would not admit fur a moment that a confidential letter giving information to the head of tho department should be made part of the enquiry. Such a thing was not only unheard of, bat would bo, for purposes of public policy, ext'emelj inadvisable and improper, and therefore ho did not say he would produce it at anybody’s request. Mr Tosswill said he waa quite satisfied. Mr Hogg said there had been a great deal of mystery about th's letter. Ho knew something of the author of it, and he believed that ho had not the slightest reluctance to its coming before the Board, and the fullest publicity being given to it. Tho Board then retired to consider its decision. On returning about half an hour later, the Commissioner reported that the following resolution had been carried, on the motion of Mr McCardle, seconded by Mr Fitzhcrbert :—“ That in the opinion of tho Board the charges against Mr llalsoy of having committed breaches of tho Land Act have been absolutely disproved.” Tho motion was then put and carried, Mr Hogg alone dissenting. The Commissioner congratulated Mr Kataey, and said that all the Board wanted waa to get to the bottom of the matter. In reply to Mr Tosswill the Commissioner stated that tho title would now bo issued to Mr Batsoy. Tho proceedings then terminated.