THE N.Z.L. AND M.A. COMPANY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2106, 5 July 1894, Page 5

THE N.Z.L. AND M.A. COMPANY.

Special— By Telegraph— Copyright.

London, Jane 27.

The new directors of the Loan and Mercantile Company are petitioning the Board of Trade to stop the action against the old directors for the recovery of dividends paid out of capital.

THE JUDGE'S STATEMENT. (From Oub Special Correspondent.)

Lokdon, May 19.

On Monday, the 7fch inst., Mr Justice Vaughan Williams made his thrice-postponed "statement" with reference to the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company. It was not a " judgment," be it remembered. He was careful to point out that. He had no right, he explained, to pronounce any "judgment" at that stage. All be had to do was to state the factß which, in his opinion, had been disclosed or established as the result of the 14 days' examination of the directors, officers, and auditors of the company. Every part of the court was crowded. Sir J. Fergusson, Mr Thomas Russell, Mr Bristow, and Mr Paul were present. Each word which fell from the judge was followed with the keenest interest and attention. His statement occupied more than five hours, and is declared by The Times to have been the longest judicial utterance ever yet delivered in the New Law Courts. To this the Westminster Gazette adds: "The longest — and perhaps also the most literary ; the art with which his Lordship conveyed a great deal in language of studied moderation was altogether admirable." The judge characterised the official receiver's report as of "admirable clearness," and said he could not find any salient fact stated in it from beginning to end that was altered or modified by the evidence 6ince given. He divided the case into four parts. First, the issue of debentures in 1879, in which year the company took the opinion of counsel ; and the subsequent issue of debenture stock in 1880, when it was alleged the directorg must have known that their form of application was misleading, inasmuch as it suggested that security was given in the property of the company, when in fact it was not. Second, the issue of debenture stock in 1892 — the Schroder issue — when the holders of outstanding debentures and debenture stock •were invited to come in, but, as asserted, the earlier holders not being told that they were unsecured. Third, that the directors failed to disclose matters materially affecting the financial position of the company, and that the balance sheets were positively misleading. Fourth, the transactions between the Loan Company and the Land Company, as to which it was said that the transactions were not bona fide in the interests of the Loan Company, but in that of Mr Russell and those associated with him in the Waikato Land Association.

With reßpecb to all these allegations, the judge held them to have been supported by the evidence given. (1) All the prospectuses inviting applications for debentures were misleading, because they all, although expressed in three different ways, clearly conveyed the impression that a charge would be given on the asset?, while the directors all scouted the idea that there ever had been or could be such an intention, and refused to believe that anyone imagined such an intention to exist, although many letters had been received clearly showing that that misconception extensively prevailed. Mr Russell and Mr Hollams were in conflict as to the history of the various wordings of the prospectus and its amendments, and the original documents which could have thrown light on the matter had mysteriously disappeared. However, the result was that the debentureholders were led to believe they held definite security, whereas they had none, and were never meant to have any. The "ease" prepared by instruction of the directors _ for the opinion of counsel distinctly admitted that a misunderstanding on this head was possible and likely, whereas the directors deny that they even conceived this possible. Counsel explicitly advified that the form was misleading and should be altered, and that all debentures already issued under the misleading prospectus should be reissued. Mr Russell had alleged that this trivial alteration of secured "upon" the company's assets to secured "by" was given to him by Mr Hoi lam 8 (the company's solicitor; as the alteration necessary to carry out counsel's opinion, but Mr Hollams denied this, and said the alteration was shown to him by Mr Russell, whereupon he (Mr Hollams) condemned it as inadequate, to Mr Russell's evident annoyance. In the end the misleading form was used, counsel's opinion notwithstanding. (2) When the Schroder issue of 1892 took place and specific security was given by trust deed, the old debenture-holders, although invited to come in and convert into the new stock at a small sacrifice, were not told that if they did not do so they would remain without security, and this in spite of many letters being received showing that the debentureholders were still under the impression that they were secured. The judge accounted for this strange reticence by remarking that as many of the old debentures were terminable at short dates the holders, if informed that they were unsecured, might have insisted on being paid off instead of coming in under the Schroder issue. As a consequence of this continued misleading, holders to the amount of £1,508,868 did not convert.

(3) The directors deliberately suppressed the information received from Mr Larkworthy as to the unsound condition of the company's affairs in the colony, and this although the special reports, progress reports, and other colonial returns in the directors' hands, not only have demonstrated Mr Latkworthy's accuracy but also had shown that the unsound condition reported by him was intensified from year to year. A paragraph was inserted in Sir James Fergusson's speech as chairman of the meeting. Sir Thomas Paine had advised that the reference to losses should not be " too strong," words which the learned judge repeated with inimitable inflection of sarcasm, and this which was drafted by Mr Thomas Russell certainly was not " too strong "

It was as hard, said Mr Justice Vaughan Williams, to discover the reference in that passage to the re?ults of Mr Larkworthy's investigation as it was to find the required object in the puzzle sketches given in the weekly papers. Nobody would readily guess what that passage was really meant to refer to. Unless he had been told that it referred to Mr Larkworbhy's report he should most certainly never bare guessed it.

But after even that passage had been suppressed from the published report of Sir James Fergusson's speech, and when it was found needful to reprint the report more accurately, a deliberately untruthful reason was implied for taking that coarse. On the fly leaf

it was said that •• a desire having been expressed for a fuller report, a report in extenso is sent herewith." He could not think there was one of the directors who had given evidence before him who would not look back upon that statement on the fly leaf with regret. It was just ones of those statements of half truth, which really indicated a determination not to frankly tell the truth more strongly than a bare , mis-statement of fact. It was perfectly obvious ' that the statement on the fly leaf suggested an untrue reason of issuing the fresh edition, and that the reason for stating the untrue reason was the fear that it would, as Sir Thomas Paine put it, be "too strong." The author of "Hudibras" had said: "The man who equivocates is worse than the man who lies, because the man who lies would fain deceive one— his fellow creature; but the man who equivocates would fain deceive three — himself, his neighbour, and his God." Tolerably sultry this, was it not? Mr Justice Vaughan Williams has "a way of putting things " ! Then his Lordship took occasion to refer very pointedly to Mr Larkworthy, and his part in all the transactions : — "Having regard. to all the evidence," the judge observed, " I can only say that the company possessed in Mr Larkworthy a most valuable and trustworthy servant. I say further, it is tolerably plain from the evidence that if Mr Larkworthy had continued to be the managing director of the company and had not been forced t9 leave the company in all probability the company would not have been in liquidation at the present time. I could not help seeing, from the mode in which several of the directors gave their evidence that they thought Mr Larkworthy in making the statement he did to the official receiver had been guilty of disloyalty to his fellow directors. I can only say that in my judgment Mr Larkworthy showed no disloyalty to the directors, but if any wrong tendency, a wrong tendency in trying to shield them in matters in which they were undoubtedly to blame. If Mr Paul, the manager, had taken the same view of his obligation of frankness when examiued before me which Mr Larkworthy did, this examination would not have lasted nearly th 9 length of time that it has." A more remarkable and outspoken testimonial to a man holding Mr Larkworthy's " position could hardly have been given or desired, and having it before him that gentlemen may well regard with equanimity any other remarks upon his conduct. It is no part of my function to express in this place any opinion as to the merits of the case, but merely to record what happened. Most people, however, will agree with me in regarding this deliverance of the judge a very striking one, especially coming as it did, in the course of what carefully purported to be no "judgment," but a mere " statement " of facts. Further, the judge expressed the strongest doubt whether the directors really distrusted Mr Larkworthy's report. All the' subsequent reports from the colonies had shown Mr Larkworthy's to have been optimistic rather than the reverse. (3) Coming next to the balance sheet, his Lordship pointed out that in 1892 three items of £21,000, £14,000, and £11,000 were carried to the credit of profit and loss, though the money had not been earned. Moreover, a very large sum, between £300,000 and £400,000, representing the investments of the Loan Company in shares of the Land Company, was included in the balance sheet of 1892 under the head of "advances on wool and produce in hand and to arrive, current accounts, and debenture Btock expenses," instead of being included under the head of "stock and share investments." These items were ultimately passed by the auditors, as also was a sum of £141,000 expenses on the floating of the Schroder debentures, which was entered as an asset in order to conceal the enormous discount allowed to Messrs 'Schroder. Further, the whole of the reserve fund had in reality disappeared, and this would have been shown had the balance sheet been truthful instead of itß being still allowed to remain as if existent ; also, instead of there being a profit for the year of £69,363 as stated there was in reality a deficiency of- £1009. Thus there were no funds available for the payment of a dividend. Yet £41,216 was paid ! Of course it was paid out of capital Severe censure was passed on the auditors for passing all these improprieties. The judge held that there was " no justification for their conduct," and that in regard to certain points "the auditors hardly attempted to putforward a justification." Then his Lordship interposed the following comment, which, as one paper observes, as an instance of a scathing criticism, suggested rather than asserted, would be hard to beat: — "It is worthy of remark that, if the evidence of the directors is accurate, there seems to have existed a system of suppression, in the offices of the company, of matters which the servants of the company personally gained nothing by suppressing, and which they musb have suppressed in what they conceived to be the interest of the directors. The fact of such suppression throws a strong light on the estimate formed in the offices of the company of the standard of commercial morality of the directors."

(4-) Lastly, the judge came to that investment in the Waikato Land Company* shares. He pointed out that the directors of the Loan Company had received something very like a gratuity from Mr Russell and the syndicate. No one could supge&t that fhe investment of the Loan Company in th« Land Company was a sound investment for the Loan Company. The real reason uvged for this had been that the land .debentures were held by the same persons »s those interested in the Loan Company, and had the Land Company gone into liquidation commercial credit in New Zealand would have been prejudiced. The adjustment of the matter was left to Mr Russell and Mr Battley to cirry out as they thought best, and Mr Russell was obviously the arbiter who had to determine at his own will the conditions upon which this transaction was to be carried out. Mr Russell by the arrangement relieved himself from an indebtedness to the Land Company of £75,000, and other members of the associations were also relieved of their indebtedness, getting in exchange shares in the new Land Company, which bore no liability whatever. The evidence seemed to show irresistibly that the transaction was calculated to bestow immediate and direct benefits upon the existing shareholders in the Waikato Land Association, many of whom ■were also directors of the Loan Company, in exchange for a speculative benefit of a limited character. The evidence further showed that the directors deliberately withheld information from their shareholders respecting this transaction.

In the judge's opinion the transaction was proposed " for the purpose of saving the Waikato Land Association from going into liquidation, with its attendant consequence of the ruin of Mr Russell," and he remarked that the documentary evidence "shows how entirely the committee of the Loan Company allowed Mr Russell to determine everything according to bis own will, and how conscious he was of his own power."

With reference to the suggestion that the directors of the Loan Company had so large an

interest in its shares that they were unlikely to do anything knowingly to its detriment, the judge (having pointed out that the majority of them were also shareholders of the Waikato Land Company) admits that " this is to a large extent true." He read a list showing that, with one exception, all had large holdings : — Gorst, 500 shares ; Fergusson, 542, and also 100 sixtti-issue shares ; Larkworthy. 430, and 100 sixth-issue ; Sir George Russell, 500 ; Stafford, 750 and 105 ; Bristow, 500. The last-named gentleman h*d transferred 108 to Sir G. Russell for the purpose of qualification. Here his Lordship remarked, "Mr Bristow gave his evidence so carefully and accurately that anything Mr Bristow tells me I should treat certainly as reliable." Mr Thomas Russell's holding was not referred to.

As to Mr Mundella, the judge said that at the time of the liquidation Mr Mundella held no shares whatever iv the company. He held at one time 761 ordinary and 100 sixth-ifisue shares. Most of these he sold in 1889, and the residue after accepting Ministerial office. "That," said the judge, "was put forward as the reason for his parting with those shares. It may have been so, but I thought it right to communicate with Mr Mundella's counsel and ask what Mr Mundella had done in reßpecb of the other shares that he held. I understand Mr Mundella still holds hie New Zealand deferred shares. It may be, of course, that he still holds these because they are unsaleable. I do not know how that is, and with regard to his investments in other companies there may be special reason for' his continuing those investments, but I do not understand that he upon taking office gave up those investments."

In conclusion his Lordship observed that he had one thing to say which gave him pleasure to say :—": — " That is, that with some exceptions, which I do not mean to give myself the pain of mentioning, but which I will leave to the consciousness of the individual gentlemen, the evidence has been given with great frankness. Generally speaking there was nob a disposition to fence with the questions or in any way to deny matters that ought to have been admitted."

He had had to make some observations uncomplimentary to Mr Moore (the auditor), but he had heard since that Mr Moore was ill and could not do himself justice in the witness box. It might be that that was the explanation. He felt sure that those persons who had been examined must regret their examination had not taken place earlier, and that they had not thus had an earlier opportunity of giving the explanations " such as they were." No doubt the delay was due to an opinion, with which his Lordship did not agree, that the examination might have prejudiced the negotiations for reconstruction of the company, but the post- 1 ponement bad not been in the real interest of the company or of the directors, and those who had caused it in that idea had made a great mistake and were very bad friends of the directors.

Such is a brief summary of this important judicial deliverance.

On the following day the judge expressed his willingness to hear any explanation the directors or officers might wish to offer or to receive any corrections of inaccuracies, or to hear counsel's address, if this were deemed desirable, but added that he should nob draw any unfavourable conclusion if nothing of the sort were desired. He did not allocate blame to anyone in' particular. Some of the directors might be without cause for substantial blame. He had not intended to impute to any individual personal responsibility or personal blame, but had simply dealt with facts generally. The Solicitor-general promised to consult his clients. So far no steps have been taken, THE SEQUEL. It is not too much to say that a tremendous sensation was caused by the publication, although in condensed form, by all the daily papers of this most remarkable judicial utterance. Then came the outburst of journalistic comment. With one single and strange exception it was of a strongly condemnatory character as to the conduct of the directors and officers of the company. That exception was furnished by the Standard, of all papers in the world. This is how that scathing " statement " of the judge struck the Standard : — •' The material, indeed vital, point in Mr Justice Williams's statement is that it exonerates the public men who were examined before him from the charge, to which their objection to the original form of order for tbeir appearance gave some countenance, of reluctance to face a full and open inquiry into their conduct in connection with the New Zealand Loan Ageiicy. It was not pleasant to find such an insinuation made, even for a moment, with any colour of excuse, in regard to men like Sir James Fergusson, Mr Mundella, and others whose names are well within the recollection of the public, and it is satisfactory that the suggestion is now dissipated by Mr Justice Williams's report." I am not exaggerating when I say that this extraordinary view of the case was read with absolute amazement. The palpable motive was the whitewashing of Sir James Fergusson and Bir John Gorst. • Bub the failure was ghastly. For the other papers spoke with no uncertain voice, and the voice was one of the severest censure. The Conservative papers no more spared Sir James Fergusson and Sir John Gorßtthan did most of the Radicals did Mr Mundella. Tho leaders in The Times were very severe, as may be judged when it designated the company's proceedings as a system of continued aud complicated dishonesty ; and Fair Play says that the 'Teal truth of the matter is that Mr Mundella has been kicked out of office by tho toe of The Times boot." The writer of the article in Fair Flay asks in what respects the directors are better than Jabez Balfour. THE NEW CHIP ANY. The new Loan and Mercantile Company seem to have made a fair start at last. The court has approved the articles of association. The company has been registered. The board has been chosen. It consists of four of the five gentlemen already named by me — viz., Messrs B. Martin (chairman), B-aumont, Oswald, and G&rrick, with Mr H. J. Gibbs, who is well and favourably known in New Zealand commercial circles. Mr Hegan finally declined to accept a seat, bub it is possible Mr Bristow may go back. I hear the directors' fees are fixed at £500 per annum casb. None too much, if only they will do the work for which they accept the pay, and the present men I fancy will do co. It will be a blissful change for the better, and quite a new departure from the traditional ways of •• guinea pigging." But these are men of a j totally different calibre, who really mean business, and not mere fee-bagging for ' acting as ornamental figureheads and decoy ducks. Under vigorous and judicious management the new company ought to have a good future before it. Let us hope so at any rate for the sake of the colony. i

The Canterbury Progressive Liberal Association have resolved to make representations to the Minister for Lands urging upon him the desirableness of re-introducing the old system of perpetual lease, which provided for a periodical readjustment of rent, the association being strongly of opinion that the introduction of the lease in perpetuity, under which the State virtually parts with the unearned increment, has been a step in the wrong direotion. ,

LAND BALLOT.

A ballot (conducted by Mr F. A. Cullen, under the supervision of Mr J. P. Maitland) was taken at the Lands Office on Friday for rural and village homestead allotments, situated in different parts of Otago, the drawing being as follows :—: — LOWER HAWEA. Section 67, block XII, 5 acres, on lease in perpetuity ; rental per acre, 9d.— Robert A. Cairns and George Borrows (unopposed). RANKLEBURN. Section 50, block VI, 5a 3r 32p, on lease in perpetuity; rental per acre, Is 7d. — Successful applicant, Denis Rouglian ; other applicant, George Harris. Section 52, block VI, 8a 2r 33p, on lease in perpetuity ; rental per acre, Is 2d.— Successful applicant, William George Buchan (unopposed). WAREPA. Section 60. block I, 27a Or 36p, on lease in perpetuity ; rental per acre, 9d.— Harry Smith was the only applicant, but his application was informal. WAYNES. Sections 1 to 6, block 111, 3a lr 21p, on lease in perpetuity: rental per acre, 2s 4d.— Successful applicant, William Bills ; other applicant, Wm. J. Abernethy. Sections 1 and 4 to 14, block V, 3a Or 38n, on lease in perpetuity ; rental par acre, 2a 4d.— Successful applicant, Archibald Parkhill (unopposed). Sections 2 and 4, block VI, 2 roods, on lease in perpetuity ; rental par acre, 2s 4d.— Successful applicant, Edward Jones (unopposed). Sections 6 and 7, block VII, 2 roods, on lease in perpetuity; rental per acre, 2s 4d.— Successful applicant, James D. Drummond ; other applicant, William Drummond. CLARENDON. Section 64, block VI, 22a 3r 24p, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 20s. — Alexander Whalan (unopposed). .Section 65, block VI, 23a lr 34p, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 20s — Successful applicant, Stephen Barber ; other applicant, Margaret A. Barber. Section 66, block VI, 19a 2r 32p, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 12s 6d. — Samuel Symons (unopposed). RIMU. Section 8, block XIII, 209 alr 30p, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 25s. — Successful applicant, Arthur Stoddart ; other applicants— Margaret Andrews, Napier W. Ayson, Ellen Ayaon, Marion Stoddart, Samuel Nicolson, Robert B. Montgomery, Alfred E. Montgomery, Charles Smith, Alexander Donald, David Martin, John F. Andrews. Section 13, block XIII, 103 a3r 4p, on lease in perpetuity *, cash price per acre, 25a. — Successful applicant, A. Chisholm ; other applicants — James Graham, Annie Graham, John F. Andrews. Margaret Andrews, John A. Galbreath, David Niel, Robert B. Montgomery, Alfred E. Montgomery. Section 15, block XIII, 119 aOr 32p, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 308.— Successful applicant, Alfred JE. Montgomery; other applicants—James Graham, Annie Graham, James M'Lay jun., William J. Lory, Richard H.. Lory, John F. Andrews, John A. Galbreath, John H. Bates, Napier W. Ayson, Ellen Ayson, Arthur Stoddarfc, Marion Stoddart, Robert E. Mont- | gomery, Alexander Donald. Section 16, block XIII, 142 a 2r, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 303. — Successful applicant, John A. Galbreath ; other applicants — James Graham, James M'Lay jun., David Martin, John F. Andrews, Charles Dabinette, John H. Bates, Napier W. Ayson, Ellen Ayson, Arthur Stoddarfc, Marion Stoddart, Samuel Nicolson, R. B. Montgomery, A. E. Montgomery, Archibald H. F. Skey, Alexander Donald. Section 21, block XIII, 42a, Or 27p, for cash ; price per acre, 35s.— Successful applicant, Charles Smith ; other applicants— James Graham, Annie Graham, William Reay, John R,eay, James M'Lay jun., David Calder, John Calder, William J. Lory, Jane E. A. Lory, Richard H. Lory, James Taylor, James D. Calder, John F. Andrews, A. M. Galbreath, Ellen Ayson, Napier W. Ayson, Mary Kinder, Samuel Nicolson, R. B. Montgomery, A. E; Montgomery. TAUTUKU. Section 15, block 1, 62 a lr, on lease in perpetuity ; I cash price per acre, 25a.— Richard Baxter jun. (unopposed). Section 17, block 1, 7a lr, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 37s 6d. — Successful applicant, •A. M. Galbreath ; other applicants — Kichard Baxter jun., Alexander Donald. BLACKSTONB. Section 1, block XV, 135 a2r 2p, under occupation with right of purchase : cash price per acre, 17s 6d.— Successful applicant, Thomas Spain ; other applicants — Annie E. Spain, William Spain, Thomas Neville. CATLINS. Section 58, block I, 277 aOr ]sp, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 10a. — Henry L. Ivimey (unopposed). Section 2f>, block VIII, 182 a2r Bp, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 12a 6d.— Thomas Burton (unopposed). «LENOMARU. Section 52, block 111, 150 a3r 20p, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 12s 6d. — Successful applicant, David Mason ; other -applicants — William Spence, Thomas Spence. Donald C. Macdonald, James Shannon, Annie Spence, David Spence, Elizabeth Spence, Daniel Ogilvie, Elizabeth Opiilvie, John Mackay, William M. Mason, Sarah Mason, Susan Mason, Charles A. Mason, James T. Gillan, Margaret Carter, George Carter. Section 39, block IV, 213 a3r 18p, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 12? 6d. — Successful applicant, John Christie ; other applicants — Margaret I. Christie, Joanna J. Christie, James Christie, Jane S. Raeburn. Section 35, block VI, 278 a2r 37p, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 12s 6d.— Successful applicant, Charles Goscten (unopposed). •Section 44, block VI, 116 acres, on lease in perpetuity ; cash price per acre, 15s.— Successful applicant, William Mulrine ; other applicants — Margaret Abernethy, James Abernethy, Archib ild Abernethy, John J. Abernethy, George H. Abernethy, William Neil, G Uasher. Section 47, block VI, 117 a, 2r 17p, under occupa-

tion with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 128 6d. — Successful applicant', John J. Abernethy ; other applicants— William Oarrick, Margaret Abernethy, James Abernethy, Archibald Abernethy, George H. Abernethy, Percy Wingfield, J. H. Callahan, W. N. G. Ussher, John Proctor.

Section 48, block VI, 105 a2r 17p, under occupa- , >°o with right of purchase ; cash price per acre. 12a 6d.— Successful applicant, Percy E. Wingfteld (uuopposed). c Section 40, block VII, 132 a2r 14p, under occupa. tion with right of purchase ; cash price per aero. 12s 6d.— Successful applicant, John M'Kay ; other applicant, Robert Harwood. -

HfLLEND. Section 3, block X, 48a lr 13p, under occupation with right of purchase ; cash price per acre, 10s. — Thomas Pettigrew (unopposed).

LOWER HAWEA. Section 5, block 111. 165 acres, on lease in perFunoOTosed*)! P " Ce PWaCre ' 10 *-- John M'Carthy Section 8, block 111, 152 acres, on lease in perpetuity; cash price per acre, lOs.-John M'Carthy (unopppoßed) * Section 9, block 111, 210 a2r 27p, on lease in parFuJolSoie'd) 811 P " CB PW aCre ' lfe -- Joh « M'Carthy

„ .. „., LOWER WANAKA. Section 7, block 11, 319 acres, on lease in perEKSiaS* pnce per acrei 10s - John A^° Section 8, block V, 299 acres, on lease in perpetuity; cash price per acre, 10s. -Successful Jafeloyd ADn L1 ° yd; Other aPP^ant! Section 9, block V, 291 aOr 7p, on loaso in perpetuity; cash price per acre, & Sd.-Suc«Bßful James a Uoyd ADQ L1 ° yd ; other app " ca ° *•

a l- ™ 0,. I'OOLBURN. Sections 22, 23, and 24. block 111, 314 a3r 20p, on &o in f P ? rpßtU v y; i a8 V>"ce per acre, 17s Sd.buccessful applicant, Thomas Nevilfe; other

Section 5, block XUI. 227 a3r lip, on lease In JSlf^w-n I*'1 *' Ar T ehl r bald H. F. Skey ; other appliLS& mK£ Sto'ddaT' Jan ° E - A " Lory ' X H « Section 6. block XIII, 228 a3r sp, on lease in perpetuity; cash price per acre, 22§ 6d.-Success. ful applicant, Jane E. A. Lory ; otherapplicants--In£iXr\^kl7^J- AndraWß « MlWt Section 7, block XIII, 246 a Or 15p, on lease in perpetuity; cash price per acre, 22s b\i -Success. ful applicant, Charles Smith; other appllcantsV/■ L ° r ft Jane E - A - *"*y, R- B. Lory, J. Andrews, Margaret Andrews, Arthur Stoddart Marion Stoddart, Samuel Nicolson. fcOUUUiri » Section 10, block XIII, I9Ba 2r 16p,' under occu. pation with right of purchase ; cash price per a C^ 2 ° 3'3 ' 17 Successful applicant. MargaVet Andrews ; other applicant, John F. Andrews Section 14, block XIII, 147 a2r 23p, on kase in SSS e V"^ ; w M » pnce,22s6d.-Successful applicant, John H. Bates ; other applicants-John F. i M r w W^? rgßretAndr(!Wß ' D » vld Neill, ArchlSection 19, block XIII, 141 alr 22p, on lease In perpetuity ; cash price, 22s 6d.-Sji?cessful appliM?r^ l - C^ rd ww I-iI -i K ry; ot r her applicants-James M Lay jun., W. J. Lory, Jane E. A. Lory, John F. Andrews, Margaret Andrews, Charles Dabinette, John H. Bates, Samuel Nicolson.

LAND BOARD.

A special meeting of the Land Board was then held, when those persons who were successful in the ballot made formal application for their respective allotments, the applications being approved.

VALUATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. The board authorised the Receiver of Land Revenue to pay over to the persons entitled to receive the same the amounts received as valuation for improvements upon the under-mentioned lands .-Section 22, block V. and section, S, block X, Kuriwao district, £59 ss ; run 121 i, Budle district, £41 ss ; run 121b, Budle disJ£ b> §L 6a 3? : , tuu 2250 » Blaekrtone district, £24 ; 225h, Blackstone, £10 5«.

EDBAL LAND. The application of Frederick Bradfield for section 57, block I, Oatlins district;, for cash, was approved.

VILLAGE HOMESTEAD. The following application for village home sfcead allotment on lease in perpetuity, was approved :— JohnMeade, section 27, block XVI, Maniototo.