SOUTHLAND LAND BOARD.

Otago Witness, Issue 1913, 9 October 1890, Page 7

SOUTHLAND LAND BOARD.

The usual monthly meeMng of the board wa» held on Wednesday, October I. There were preaenfc— the Ohlef Commissioner (Mr J. Spenoe), and Messn Cowan, Kinross, and Denniston. The following applications were granted : -For cash : William Fotheringnam, section 38, block IV, Invercnrgill Hundred, 4a 3r 21p. Perpetual lease s Mary Robinson Carson, section 8, block VIII, Makarewa township, 13a Or 18p ; Hannah Butler, section 7, block VIII, Mukarewa township, 13a Or 18p ; Mary Hogan, tection 10, block IV, Waikawa, 269 aOr 33p. Complete purchases : Alexander B. Graham, section 7, blook X, Weudon distriot, 312 alr 33p ; Robin* Smith, section 17, b100k VIII, Tol ToU district* 200 a; Robert M'Oallum, section 10, block 11, Otama die* trict. 200 a; W. J. Hamill. section 118, block IV, Invercarglll Hundred, 27a 3r 13p ; Thomas Knight, section 4, block HI, Morley village, 10a 2r 8p j 3. K» B. D. Allison, section 151, Oreti, 198 a 3rl3p; Joseph Pullar. seotion 10, block VI, Waikaka, 199 a3r 20p ; Alexander Cowie, section 41, block IV, Winton Hundred, 10a Or 35p : B. V. Turner, section 87, blook 11, Seaward Buih, 4a lr 34p; Antonio Hizzi, section 09, block XIX, 2r 26p, InvercargiU Hundred. Transfers : Louisa Smith to John Ooverdale Patenon, section 35, Eyre district ; John M'Lennan to John Wharton, of Hokonui, section 275, Forest Hill Hundred ; William Peter Crow to Archibald M'Phenon, of Pabia, section 19, blook V, Longwood distriot ; Archibald M'Pherson to William Peter Grow, of Pahia, action 22, blook V. Longwood distriot, Michael Spratt'a application for a grazing lease of seotion 16, blook IV, Ohattoa distriot, was held over. Iho Secretary of the Southland Education Board wrote stating that at the present school site is supposed to be auriferous the board had directed him to apply for the reservation from sale of sections 4 to 9 and 12 to 17. block VIII, township of Hirstfleld, at a sohool site, as it was highly probable that the board would be required to give up possession of the present one under the provisions of the Mines Aot.— lt wai decided to reserve the sections as a sohool site. Ranger Mussen reported that the licenneeof section 19, block XI, Seaward Bush, had not complied with either the residence or improvement conditions.— Held over. Seotion 103, Takitirao district, was deolared forfeited, the ranger having informed the board that the lloeneee had abandoned the holding. Tiie Banger submitted the following revaluation! made by him of deferred-payment and perpetuallease sections in the districts stated:— Seotion 9, block V, Makarewa, S. W. G-edney, sa, from 80» to 70s; ;»eotlon 1, block VI, Makarewa, Miohael M'Cann, sa, 80s to 755 ; sections 28 and 33, blook VII, Mat&ura. Peter Short, 17a 2r 32p, 150s to 105s ; seotion 26, blook VII, Mataura, Robert Millar, 7a 2r. 213s to 1255 ; seotion 72, blook VIII, Inveroarglll Hundred, Richard Smith, 10a, 2s 6d to 2s; seotion 97, Takltimo district, P. S. Hilder, 217 a2r 28p, 25s to 15s; section 98, Takitimo district, W. M. Audrey, 214 a2r 34p, 30b to 16s ; section 46, block 11, Aparima Hundred, ?. Clifford, 63a 3r 30p, 50s to 28s : section 107, TakiMJno district, L. M'Kenzie, 187 aOr 12p, 25s to 16s. — The revaluations wereapproved. Edward Simpson applied for a grazing lease over a number of unsold aeotions in the township of Riverton.— Held over. W. S. Howard having failed to deposit the £6 valuation for improvements on section 14, block IX, Wendon, granted provisionally to him at last meeting, the section was declared forfeited. James Florence, the temporary occupant of tbe lanJ, wrote asking the board to dispose of the reserve north of section 2P, block 111, Wii.ton Hundred, in one block A petition was also received signed by about 15 pe r BO/Ts asking the board to have the reserve opened up for settlement, an<) suggested that it be cut up into 80-s\ore sections and sold on the deferrPd-piymunt or perpetual-lease system. — It was decided to request tho Government to comply with the suggestion containtel in the petition Robert Urquhart, FernhillFarm, wrote stating that the whereabouts of the legal licensee of section 9, block X, Tuturau, was unknown, and he had occupied the land for some time under a lease from Mr A. L. Wilson, and Mr Wil-ou wished him to continue to pay him the rent ; but the applicant had found out that Mr Wilaon had no claim to the property, and consequently had refused to pay him any more rent. Applicant would ask tbe board to grant him a lease of the larid. The Chairman said tbe land was on a peculiar footing. The original holder, Qregft,. had loft tho colony and had not transferred it. Messrs Wilson, Tame, and Co. had been advanolng money on it and kept up the payments.— Mr Kinroas oaid that Messrs Wilson, Tame, and Co. could not get a transfer of it as they had not complied with the conditions of the lease. The Chairman intimated that the board would require to pay the licenseholder for the improvements. —On the motion of Mr Cowan it was decided to inform Mnasrs Wilson, Tame, and Co. th*t the board being aware of the anomalous position of the section, requests that steps be taken to place It on a legal footing. James Ferguson, Waikawa, wrote stating that he was taking steps to effect the required improvement! on seobion 24, Waikawa. — It was deoided to fnform him that it would be advantageous to him to comply with the conditions. Miohael Markey, licensee of some land at Waikawa, wrote in reference to the steps he was going to take to comply with the conditions of his lease, and the board decided to info» m him that forfeiture must follow on non-compliance with the oondltious. It was deoided to reserve sections 30 to 34 and ?6 to 43, block V, Oteramika Hundred, owing to thefaofc of fhere being timber on the land James Paterson wrote complniningof the f R" ( -"at i stook belonging to outsiders wai trespassing on the

open land belonging to the settlers in the Waikawa Valley, and eating up all the grass to the detriment of the Grown tenants who had Btock of their ownIt was decided to inform the writer that the Bettlefs should take out depasturing licenses, and in thn event of there being a sufficient number the board would take steps to make a board of wardens. It was decided to advertiie block 9, Waikaia, open for application at 20s per acre. The Education Boardtwrote applying for section 14, block VIII, Waimatuku townßhip, as an addition to the school site, as the present area was inadequate. —It was deoided to inform the Kducation Board that the board would piefer to grant tha balance of block V. Thomas Grove, of Roxburgh, applied for the lease of nine acres of land in section 17, block VI, Chatton, for coal mining purposes. — Granted, at 5s per acre and cost of survey, royalty to be paid at the rate of 3d pßr ton. _ The New Zealand Pine Company was granted the timber on sections 2a and 2b, coutainiug 20a Or 2p, In block VIII, Winton. It wa3 decided that steps be takon Under Clause 188 of the "Land Act 1885,'* to advertise the rights in connection with the following runs open to forfeiture : -Hun 443, Manapouri station ; Eun 475, between Chalky and. Dusky Sound ; and Hun 323b. George Young wrote drawing the attention of the board to the fact that Mr Hlrßt. of Orepuki, had been burning flax on a section lately occupied by ono Alderaon, at the mouth of the river. He thought this a malicious act, if Mr Hirst had no authority to destroy the flax. He also asked tho board to grant him permission to «ufc flax on the land.— lt was decided to inform Mr Hirst that comphint had been made, and ask him if he knew anything about the mattor. It was decided to recommend the Government to bring section 8, block XV, Longwood district, and the other unsoll aeoMona adjoining in the Dime locality, under the act of 1887, at an upset rental of £1 per ncre. In reply to Mr Young ifc was decided to inform him that the matter of the burningof flax was being seen to, and that the board was willing to allow him to cut flax on section 8. block XV. Longwood district, on his paying £2 per annum, the board reserv ing the right to grant the section to auyono who applies for it, Thomas M'Gowan was granted a grazing right over aections 11 and 12, block VIII, Mataura town district, at an annual rental of £1 ss. Sections 5 1 to 61, block V, Caroline, wero declared forfeited, the licensee, Alexander Ingiis, having stated that the land was not suitable for hifl purpose. Robert Thomson was granted a lease of section 8. block IV, Danielfcown, with a right to occupy the adjoining sections Nob. 9 and 10 at a rental of 10s per annum. With regard to the grazing right which had been granted to Mrs Hutton over section 4, block VI, Waikiia Bush, and the grantiug of which by private sale had oaused a large number of settlers to petition the board asking for its cancellation, it was decided to give Mrs Hutton 12 months' notice that her license would not be renewed, and during the 12 months the matter would be co 'sidered. Applications were received from P. O'Hagen and Forbes M. Dawson for the lease of the lignite reserve in section 29, block 6, Waikaka district, the former offering 8d per acre and the latter 7d per acre for the same —The matter was left in the hauds of the chief commissioner, as was also th« framing of the conditions. John Regefsky, Gore, applied for the lease for 14 years of the lignite reserve alongside seotion 11, block I. Waibaka district.— This was also left in the hands of the chief commissioner. John Pox was granted six months' exemption from residenoe on section 708, Wyndham. John Rogers asked for the lease from year to year of the chain reierve between section 2, block 111, Kingston, and the river.— lt was deoided to decline the request, on the recommendation of the ranger, who stated that trout fishing would be greatly interfered with If the application were granted. W. Foley was granted a reduotion 1h the valuation of his section In Flint's Bush from 9s to 6s per annum. Edward Brown, licensee of sections 81 and 9, blook IV, Wolkawa, appeared before the board, giving his reason for not oomplying with the conditions of his lease, and was granted six months' exemption from residence. THE CASK OF BDWARD M'AUBTBB. The case of Edward M'Alister came up for consideration at the ordinary meeting of the Land Board held yeiterday, on the application by Stevenson for the 1 land being renewed. It will be remembered that the subject caused a good deal of discussion when last considered. Some of the members held that M'Alister. whose land— section 551, Hokonul— which was forfeited because of the nonpayment of rent, was equitably, if not legally, entitled to the relief afforded by the Seleotors' Land Revaluation Act, while the chief commissioner considered, in view of the fact that Stevenson had since made application for the land, that it would be unjust for him to refuse to entertain it. It was, however, ultimately decided by the board to recommend M'Alister's case to the favourable consideration of the Government, the chief commissioner alone dißsenting. At yesterday's meeting the question again came up for consideration. To expedite matters, the Chairman said he would read over the view of the matter taken by the Land Office. The context would show that the provisions for appeal laid down in seotion 73 of the aot referred solely to inquiries relative to dummyism. The words of the section were, "Every person feeling himself aggrieved by a decision of the board in any such inquiry may apply for a rehearing." Now, how could M'Alister feel himself aggrieved by the board forfeiting his seotion, seeing that he was at the time several years' rent in arrears, and seeing that subseotion 10 of section 114 of " The Land Aot 1885 " enjoined forfeiture. He could have had no ground whatever for a rehearing, and, as a matter of fact, he did not apply for one, but gave tacit consent to the forfeiture and to the section being reopened for application. Ifc is now, or at least recently was, argued by his solicitor that he could legally apply for a rehearing under this clause, although more than 18 months had passed since the forfeiture, and alchough the section has been reopened for application and applied for by an outsider. Now if an acquiescence of 18 months does not nullify M'Alister's right to a rehearing, is there any reason why the right should not remain alive for 18 years, or'eveu for an infinitely longer time. No rehearing now granted could possibly show that the Bection was not at the time legally forfeitable owing to heavy arrears of payment. If Beotion 73 has universal application and provides for rehenrings without limit aB to time and circumstances, then the Land Office will never know how it stands, and section 79, which limits the time for rehearing to 30 days, will become a dead letter. Continuing, the Chairman said: Seotion 651, Hokonul, has been applied for by an outsider after having been forfeited by the original licensee for breach of conditions, and after having been advertised open to the public for some 18 months. At the Selectors' Land Revaluation Act has not been amended it is clear the land in question occupies precisely the same legal position tbat it did when last before the board. I have no doubt that something will be done by this board under the existing law in the interests of ex-licensees of forfeited sections, in cases where these ex-licensees are in occupation of their sections, " eaid sections haviug remained unapplied for." The land in question, however, has been reapplied for, and thus occupies an exceptional position. Having been publicly advertised open for a length of time, and the applicant being not only the prior but the only applicant;, I cannot but think that he has not only a moral but also a legal claim upon the section, unless the board in. terms of section 102 of the Land Act 1885 deem it thpir duty to withdraw the section from sale as being "prejudicial to the public interest " The withdrawal of the section ib in no way required by the publio interest, and the only objeot which members of the board could have in withdrawing it would be to hand it back to the original licensee. Now the private interest of the ex-liceneee cannot be mnde to cover the " public interest " unless, indeed, every private interest be looked upon as n public interest, but this would tell as much in favour of Stevenson as of M'Alister. There c*n, I think be no doubt that the board on public grounds can withdraw the section from sale, but to hand it back to one who forfeited his right to same is whan the board, in the face of Steveneon's application, canno'. legally do. The terms of said section 102 alone make this clear. I feel persuaded that were the board to refuse the section to Stevenson and attempt to reinstate M'Aliatera Supreme Ocurt action would lie against the board if Stevenson chose to set it in motion. Mr Kussell said that if the board deoided against M'AUster it would mean that he would petition the Government. He always remained iv occupation of hia section. The object of Parliament in passing the aot was to keep the settlers on theland. It would be a great hardship to M'Alister to turn him off the land, as he now had hi* crops in. Mr Denniaton said that he had made further in-

«^>? w'L cefcbe , 9 ue » tl onwas la.t considered, fh«f »»,«♦», £ a ob , u B ed t0 ceme to the conclusion that when the bomd forfeibed the section it virtually held an inquiry into the circumstances under section 71 of the act of 188&, and thus any person feeling aggrieved had a right to a rehearing. The position he held was the position held by the Government s legal adviser in Wellington, and was a strone one He moved-" That the board resolve, under section 71|of the 'Land Act 1885,' t0 grant a rehearing to Edward M'Alister. whose license over section 5&1 Hokonui, was declared forfeited." The' Chairman said that that office [never had forfeited under section 71. The clause they went on was sub-section 10 of section 114. M'Alisfcer was in arrears, and if he had felt himself unfairly dealt with, he would have applied for a rehearing, but what was the use when he knew he was immensely In arrears. How could a man feel aggrieved when his section was forfeited under the aot, and if he did feel aggrieved Could not he have appealed at the ttme, and not when the Revaluation Act came into force ? Mr Russell said tho matter was in a focus, Parliament having expressed its opinion on the subject, and the refusal on the part of the board would only mean M'Alister petitioning Parliament on the subject. Parliament, In passing the Revaluation Aot, recognised the advisability of keeping d«ferred-pay-ment settlers on their land should they be unable to piy their rent through bad times or some other cause over which they had no control. Mr Cowan said that on the general question of reinstatement he thought they should strain every nerve to retain selectors on their forfeited sections provided they had continuously kept in possession. There was a difference in regard to M'Alister's case, as an outside application had been made. On that accaunt he was prepared, when the time came, to vote that Stevenson's application be accepted. With regard to Mr Denniston's contention re section 71 of tho act of 1885, he would read a paragraph from the report of the Waste Lands Committee of the Home, which bore out his interpretation completely. The report was submitted on Crow and Anderson's petition, and the part referred to was as follows:— " With regard to the resolution of the Land Board I would point out that it appears to the department, in addition to any Inquiry that may be instituted as to alleged dummyism, non-paymaufc of rent is one of the questions on which inquiry can be held, and forfeiture of lease of license determined under section 71 of the "Land Act 1885." It is clear there must be some inquiry by the board before it can be ascertained that rent or instalments are in arrears, and inquiry as to this may bs held as coming within the scope of tho provisions of section 71. If this contention is correct the board could grant a rehearing under section 73 in cases where persons are still in occupation of their selections which had been declared forfeited, but not abandoned, if they considered they are aggrieved by the previous decision of the board. The whole matter is, however, one entirely within the discretion of the Lan.l Board, and the department cannot interfere." Mr Denniston said that in the first place he did not think Mr Stevenson had any legal right to the seotion- mere application gave him no legal right, as it was in the discretion of the board to refuse that application. If it was a matter of public interest to retain the selectors on the land by reducing their rents, it surely was a matter of public interest to relieve others who were in similar positions. It was in the publio interest that Stevenson's application should bo rejected. He regarded Stevemon as having come forward to jump the claim of a person whose equitable right to continue in possession was unquestionabla. Mr Cowan said he believed that Stevenson had established a right to the teotion. Mr Rusiell said it would be a great hardship to M'Alister to put him off the land, as he had made a number of improvements for wbioh he would receive nothing, and he had also put In a crop in anticipation of being allowed to continue In possession. The Chief Commissioner said that the board was not a oharltable aid board or a philanthropic institution. They must administer the law in a just way. The land was applied for by Stevenson, who had thus established a moral right to it and oertainly a legal one, unless the board withdrew the section for publio purposes ; but to refuse it to Stevenson and grant it to a man whoie legal right had lapsed years ago was not carrying out eitherthe spirit or'the strict letter of the law. The board had to administer the law as they found it. He was inclined to think that It would not only be unjust to Stevenson, but give him a chance to bring an action in the Supreme Court. With regard to M'Alister, he was prepared to move that the Government be recommended to remit him his arrears. Mr Kinross said he agreed with the ohairman that clauße 71 of the aot did not apply to the present oaee, and that the board forfeited the land under subsection 10 of the aot. They considered that the land was in arrears to such an extent tbat the licensee would not be able to make up the payments within a certain time, and bo the land was forfeited. But he considered that the board vras a board of equity, and it should not hold to the strict letter of the law. If the strict letter of the law were adhered to, more than half the selectors would have to leava their land. He thought that Stevenson's application should not be accepted. It had not yet been dealt with, and the board had the right to say whether they would accept it or not, according to the spirit of the act. It was against the publio interest to put the people off the land, and that was why the Land Revaluation Act was passed. Ihe Ohairman : What about Ftevenson's rights ? Mr Kinross : Rather than deprive a man and bis family of their rights, I would break stones on the roads. He had a legal right to " apply," and that was all. The Chairman moved, and Mr Cowan neconded — " That the application of Mr Stevenson be granted." Mr Danniston moved as au amendment, seconded by Mr Kinross—" That having regard to the spirit of recent legislation, the board resolves, in the public interest, to refuse the application of Thomas Traill Stevenson for section 551, Hokonui district."— The amendment and the motion were then put, the respective movers and seconders voting accordingly ; and the chairman gave his casting vote in favour of the motion, which was declared carried. Mr Russell said that, never dreaming that the board would go back from its resolution at the last meeting endorsing a petition to Parliament, which in turn had recommended it to the favourable consideration of the Government, he had advised Mr M'Alister to put in his crops. The Chairman said Mr M'Alister should not have been advised to do so, and he waß quite satisfied that he had not stultified himself in the least, aa his dissent from the resolution of the board was recorded. He was not iv the habit of waveriDg about in his opinions. Mr Cowan said that as thecnus of giving relief to those unfortunate settlerß had been thrown upon the board he would move—," As it is evident that the Government and the Legislature are willing, in connection with the operation of the Selectors' Land Revaluation Act, that the law should bo liberally interpreted in the interests of persons who have bad their sections declared forfeited, I beg to move that the board, in view of the advantages of keeping the original settlers on their sections, agree to reinstate in their holdings all licensees of forfeited sections who have remained in occupation thereof, and whose sections have not up to this date been reapplied for." — Seconded byJMr Kinross and carried. The board then adjourned.— Southland News.