WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTH MERCURY.

Otago Witness, Issue 1653, 28 July 1883, Page 18

WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE SOUTH MERCURY.

SATURDAY, 28th JULY, 1888

The decision of his Honor Mr Justice Williamb in the oaae of Josnton v. the Land Board will give general satisfaction to the many in Otago who feel that the Board has only fulfilled its duty in see-king to probe the recent cases of alleged damroyisni to the bottom. The, application on behalf of Johnston for a mandamus to compel the Board to ibsue a license "was practically an attempt to stifle an inquiry. All that the Board da sired to do was to satisfy itself ;*s to the bona fides of the applicant. If he "was taking up the land for his own exclusive use and benefit he had nothing to fear ; and the fact that all possible obstruction has been placed in the way of the Boai-cj in investigating this and other applications for land on the Bame run, has strongly coj firmed the publio mind in the impression that to all intents and purposes thene men were dummies. If that be the case, the Board would certainly be justified in going to the very edge of its powers to defeat a design which is manifestly opposed to publio policy and to the interests of true settlement. His Honor has declared that the Board is justified in making inquiry of the applicant in person, and that in his opinion the provisions of section 84 of i the Act of 1877 contemplate a personal j attendance of the purchaser before the Board. The legal grounds for the refusal of his Honor to grant a mandamus are very clear. He holds that Johnston could only rest his case for such interference on the part of the ! Court on the allegation .that his license had been refused. If ifc was refused, as his Honor holds that it practically was, on the 11th of April, then he had a remedy nnder section 31 of the Act by an appeal to the Court. If ho had made such appeal, then the whole facts could have been gone into, and the applicant and other witnesses could have been examined on oath, either with or without a jury, as the ground of defence must rest mainly on questions of f-ict. The issue of a mandamus is only permissible when all other remedies fail, and in the absence of any power of appeal, the contention thafc the Board had no right to demand the attendance of Johnston before issuing hi« license is not only contrary to

the Judge's expressed opinion, "bub it would not avail even if upheld, as i>> that case the only effect would ha\c been to make the Hoard's refusn! to issue a license final, and thcr > could be no question that lh • applicant could appeal. That iclearly the remedy provided by th<> Act, -and the only proper remedy. 1 This decision will strengthen the hanch of the Board in firmly refusing to issuthe licenses in any of th.p eight, cases of suspected dummy ism. Lot each of th-: parties be placed in a position t>aj>peal if they are aggrieved, and full justice will be d.mc. If they are put to expense it is because they have declined to make a clean breast of it in the face of specific charges sustained by a great deal of indirect evidence. Meanwhile the' Parliamentary Commifcteee can pursue their investigation. Witnesses will be protected by the bill brought in by the Ministry and passed through all its stages in both Houses, against crinii nal proceedings founded on any evidence they may give, and if the Committee do their duty, we shall at last obtain a full disclosure of all the circumstances, and the Board will be in a position to decide on its future course of action should any further proceedings be taken under the appeal clause in any or all of the cases. One difficulty, how over, arises with regard to appeals — viz., • that notice of such appeals must be given within 30 days after the decision appealed agaiueb is made, aud we do not know how this difficulty can be got over, as the Act gives no power to the Board to extend the time, and in Johnston's oase, which will probably be held to govern the other cases, the decision is held by the Judge to have been made on April 11. As the Board gave every opportunity to the parties to represent the facts, it cannot be blamed if the result of the delay is to deprive the parties of a legal remedy, as by their own act they allowed the time to elapse within which they clearly had a remedy by appeal. His Honor leaves the question of the right of the Board to examine witnesses as a Royal Cummission an open ono, and the point is of lt j ss consequence since a thorough investigation is now likely to be made by the Parliamentaiy Committee. The proper course for the Board now to pursue is to be entirely quiescent until the decision of Parliament is known ; and if the parties then consider themselves aggrieved, let them apply for redress to the Legislature itself. The verdict of the publio will be that so far substantial justice has been done.