TAKING THE HATUMA ESTATE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXVII, Issue 3440, 23 May 1898, Page 2

TAKING THE HATUMA ESTATE.

Within the last few days the steps taken on behalf of the Government to acquire the Hatuma estate, at Waipukurau, in Hawke’s Bay, have received the unanimous approval of the Court of Appeal, la refusing an injunction to restrain the Minister for Lands from taking possession of the estate, the Court took Mr Chapman, counsel for the applicants, at his word. Mr Chapman laid it down as a condition precedent to compulsory acquisition Under the Land for Settlements Act that there must have been negotiation, a refusal to sell, and a want of agreement as to sale. The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Edwards had doubts on this point, but Conceded the proposition, And on this issue the matter was decided. Other points, spoken of by the Chief Justice as numerous, and by both him and Mr Justice Edwards as difficult, were not gone into at all in the five judgments delivered. The Court believed that there had been negotiation, that there had been a refusal to sell, and that no agreement could be come to as to sale, and therefore decided that it was competent for the Minister to proceed to take the land compulsorily. Mr Chapman, however, went further in his argument than has been stated. He contended that all the persons whose title to the laud was such that they could refuse to sell should eaoh have been negotiated with —that the consent or concurrence of each of such persons should have been sought. The Court was against this contention. It seemed to the Chief Justice that it was sufficient to show that one person interested in the laud had so conducted himself as to enable tte Government to say, “ This person refuses to sell.” Then it became unnecessary for the representatives of the Government to go on to ascertain the attitude of the other persona interested Another branch of the question arose out of the circumstance that whilst 22,000 acres of the estate was freehold, 4000 acres of it was under trusts in certain settlements. This, however, was dealt with by the Chief Justice, who pointed out that the Government wanted, not part of the estate, but the whole of it. Mr Bussell owned the larger portion, and had. a life interest in the smaller area. It seamed to His Honor that, even assuming that Mr Bussell had not a life interest in the 4000 acres, there was a refusal within the meaning of the Act to sell that which the Government wanted, that is, the entire estate. Mr

Bussell’s concurrence was sought in regard to the 4000 acres, and he certainly refused to concur in the sale of that, just as he refused to sell the 22,000 acres. It should be borne in mind that the judgments were confined to one point, and that ' other difficult points, of which two namely, whether the determination of the facts was not for the Compensation Court, and whether a provision of the amending Act relative to procedure did not really conclude the matter—were mentioned by Mr Justice E I wards, were not gone into by the Judges in their deliverances.

In this year’s conferring of birthday honours the claims of colonial birthday journalists have for the first honours, time been considered. The principle recognised in England in the cases of Sir John Long, Sir Wemyss Reid, Sir Algernon Borthwick and others has now been given a colonial recognition, and Mr J. R. Fairfax and Mr J. L. Bonytbon are to be decorated. It may be assumed that Mr David Syme, of the Melbourne Age, would also have got a title if he had been Inclined to accept it, or if the radical principles of his paper had not debarred him from taking it on business considerations, because Mr Syme is easily and incomparably the greatest journalist in Australasia, and owns the most powerful journal under the Southern Cross. He is, according to report, rich enough, too, to be able to please himself in a matter of this kind, but seemingly prefers to follow a recent and illustrious precedent and remain “ plain Mister.” Of ; tho two gentlemen who take a different view—for titles are only bestowed after the proposed recipient has been consulted—Mr Bonython has beau for many yeafs a principal proprietor of tho Adelaide Advertiser and a prominent participant in Adelaide local politics. Mr S'airfax owns the largest share in tbe Sydney Morning Herald , which has been one of the best-paying newspaper properties in Australia, and is now a great force in New South Wales. He is also a prominent mover in and contributor to philanthropic ventures, and has done enough good in this connection alone to handsomely entitle him to distinction of the kind that has now bsen bestowed on him. Mr Knox is a prominent Sydney business man who has evidently bean decorated by way of recognising the position he occupies in the Australian commercial world.