Friday, 9th July

Otago Witness, Issue 1230, 17 July 1875, Page 9

Friday, 9th July

Mr Macassey, speaking regarding the consent of the Superintendent, said the Board had no right, without the consent of the Superintendent, to alter dates or value, and the date hail been altered from the "Mill February to June 7th, and the price had been altered from lil 2s (id to L 2. Before the lands could be put up for sale, under section t>."», the Superintendent must give his consent to ail the conditions required by the statute. That consent, he submitted, was not given. The contention was that section 8o had not been complied with.

His Honour: Might not the Superintendent give his consent to the Board acting on such terms and conditions as they might think fit ? ( Mr Macassey argued that the consent of the Superintendent not haviug been given prior to the passing of the resolution of the Board, the Board acted without the Superintendent's consent. The effect of the Board being able to declare lands to be of special value — to he of special value merely because compensation had been paid, was that the Board could raise the price of every acre of Waste Lands in the country. By having this power they would have i>ower hnpliedly to repeal section 37— to assume the exercise of the power given by that section to the Governor in-Council, acting on the advice of the Superintendent. He pointed out that the land had not a special value to the purcfiaser, in so far as the fact of its previous occupation by a Crown tenant was concerned, as the purchaser, besides paying the enhanced price, had also to pay for what was said to give the land a special value, namely, he had to pay compensation for improvement!!. Mr Haggitt followed. At the conclusion of Mr Haggitt'.s argument, the case was adjourned till Saturday, when Mr Barton will open respondents' case.