Southland Land Board.

Otago Witness, Issue 1787, 20 February 1886, Page 10

Southland Land Board.

The following business was transacted at the meeting of the 11th : —

Applications granted. — Rural land— Margaret Fairweather, section 80, block V, Invercargill Hundred ; John M'lntyre, section 79, block VII, Invercargill Hundred; Hugh Stewart, section 165, Oreti Hundred. To complete purchase — Mary Todd, section 8, block IV, Menzies' Ferry. To capitalise — Dugald M'Pherson, section 238, Forest Hill Hundred ; J. C. Paterson, section 77, Eyre district ; Alexander Paterson, section 7S, Eyre district; William Paterson, section 84, Eyre district; Louisa Smjth, section 85, Byre district ; Isabella F. Paterson, section 86, Eyre district ; Matilda Paterson, section 87, Eyre district.

The Chief Surveyor recommended that sections 1 to 16, block IV, Woodend township, should be opened for cash as suburban land at £8 per acre. — Agreed to.

Imbs and Kennedy were fined £2 for cutting 10 trees more in Hillend Bush than their license gave them permission to cut.

'Die transfer of section 25, block I, Wrey's Bush, from Francis Fahey to Dennis Murphy was sanctioned.

It was decided to offer section 10, of 404 a, Hokomii, on deferred payment, at £1 5s per acres'.

It was resolved to meet fortnightly in future instead of weekly.

Mr Kinross brought up the cases of Staunton and Crowe, which had been recently the subject of discussion before the Board, and had been brought under the notice of the Minister for Lands. He had not felt sure that the law as it stood would prevent these men tendering for their sections if they were declared forfeited, and from a study of the Act he had come to the conclusion that the whole matter turned on the interpretation put upon the word " wilful " in clause 108, which provided that "no person who has forfeited the right to hold the land selected by him by reason of the wilful breach of any of the conditions of

his license shall be allowed at any time to make a new selection under this Act." His view of the position of these men was that they had not made a wilful breach — they were simply unable to pay the price agreed on. He only brought the matter up that members might consider it for future discussion.

Mr Lumsden also had been looking into the question, and would like to hnve the opinion of a Judge on it.

The Chief Commissioner said that he felt sure the Board would be only too glad to be assured that Mr Kinross' was the correct reading of the Act, but, speaking from memory, he believed that the opinion of a Judge had already been given on the point, and it was adverse.

Mr Denniston had doubts as to the interpretation to be placed on the word " wilful " as it stood in the clause. If it could be shown thai the failure of these men to comply with the conditions was non-wilful, he thought they should be permitted to tender for the land again.

Mr Toshach said it was alm»st impossible to know a man's t ue financial position, and to accept Mr Kinross' interpretation of the clause would lead to great confusion. If a man gave up his land because he thought it too dear, that he thought would be a wilful breach of the regulations.

The matter dropped on the understanding that it might be brought up again, and the Board adjourned.