PREFERENCE AT BALLOT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6491, 10 April 1908, Page 7

PREFERENCE AT BALLOT

THE OTEKAIKE ESTATE CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT. JUDGMENT RESERVED. The hearing of tho Otekaiko Settlemort case was continued by their Honors Justices Williams, Dcnniston, Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman, constituting Hie Court of Appeal, yesterday morning Mr J. H Hoiking, K.C., with him 3lt White, appeared for tho plaintiffs Mitchell and McKellar, and tho Attorney-General (Dr Findlay, K. 0.), with him Mr- Sobmon, K. 0., and Mr Richmond, for tho defendant Otago Land Board. Argument on behalf of defendants had been concluded on the previous evening.

PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL IN REPLY

Mr Hcslcing proceeded to reply. He , submitted that the result of the discussion which had taken place was to reduce tbs case to two points. One as to whether the decision of the Waste Lands Board was final for all purposes, the other whether the approval of tho Minister should have preceded tho so-called grant. In order to make his contention clear as to why ho insisted upon the finalty of tho Board’s decision, ho. would submit that if on the facts placed before the Board' it came to the conclusion that tho application fell withiri tho section, tho Minister bad the discretion to approve or disapprove; but if he did approve he, by that approval, adopted the finding—the conclusion—of the Board and approved it. Supposing the grant had followed—supposing the little technicality which the defendants’ counsel had contended for—it the grant had followed, then the grant was complete and the facts thereafter could not be controverted, and then, the ‘‘Parliamentary right,” as was said in the case of Blackwell v. the Queen (5 Privy Council), was established.

PRIORITY OF GRANT OR APPROVAL.

If that submission was correct, then all ha (Mr Hosking) had to establish was tho question as to whether there was any difference if the approval followed tho grant instead of preceding it. He submitted that, given these premises, the Board’s decision was final as against the Crown and against the world, and was, in fact, a derision “in rem.” If that wore not so, and it were not conclusive at that stage, the title would be open to attack at any time. That would he the case if there was no limit given by any statute, and the object cf the Act in making those decisions of the Board final as tibe.r -rn; upon questijos of title, was that there might be a quiet title assured to the person Who contram.' •• Crown. It was

far better that there should be some individual case of hardship or even of impropriety than there should bo. any question as to titles generally. A CLAIM OF i.iGHT. Ho suhmittcl that an application to the Board was a claim of right whi:h it was essentially the function of the Board tc. Liar and determine. If it was sugg.ttcd that the Board could not determine what employment or the deprivation of erpl 'vment was the wild language cf section seven said the matter was entirely in the Board’s hands, therefore, if :t was a question what the statute meant by ’•deprivation” or “employment, ’ tl).*ro was ampU authority for the Hoard tc come to a conclusion, subject to appeal. But he did not propose to discuss the question as to whether these men were employed on the estite or wers deprived of their employment. His position with regard to the question of approval was this; The application was au offer, and the so-called grant was simply the Board’s accept auce if that offer, so that the contract was i hereby formed. But as it accepted the offer, subject to the Minister's. approval, the contract did not become effective until that approval w ’s signified and that signification was given.

On the conclusion of Mr Hoskins’s address their Honors intimated that they would take time to consider their decision.