Miller's Flat Bridge Site. TO THE EDITOR. THE EJECTMENT CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2157, 27 June 1895, Page 24

Miller's Flat Bridge Site. TO THE EDITOR.

THE EJECTMENT CASE.

Sir,— Now that a poll of the ratepayers has been taken, and resulted in favour of having a bridge across the river here, I wish to say a few words about the present punt site. No doubt most of your readers, especially those who roside along the banks of the Clutha rivci.will rcnicmbci the flood of IS7S, when the whole of the pie&ent punt site was under water— nay, some of the residents had to flee to the hills, and in fact the whole of the banks from Timor Burn creek down to the Island Block was under water, and I maintain that it would be absolute folly to place the bridge at such a site when there is a far superior one a mile and a-half hisjher up. Wlro knows but that there in jy be such another flood? Therefore, I bay, place the bridge on a rock foundation, and guard agaißst future destruction.— l am, <kc , Miller's Flat, June 24. A Resident.

A strange complaint was received by the Nelson Education Board from Central Buller to Ihfl effect tbat two individuals took possession of the schoolhouse there and barricsdad and slept in the place, the motive of their holding it beiDg to use the school for religious meetings. The committee was instructed that it is re»ponsible for the building. — Thelwys of Westminster School, London, h&ve a prescriptive right to two seatß in the Strangers.'. Gallery irj the House, of Lords, a» well ai in the House. of Commons. They take we to exercife it, as boy* may be often Been in the g*llerrea of both Housea.

(Fbom Oub Own Correspondent.)

Invercargill, June 26.

The report you published to-d&y of the Becker v. Young case gives plaintiff's account only, and, as I am credited in some quarters with furnishing that account, I send yen herewith what I think is a fairer version of tho case. Tho defendant' 6 account was never given, because the judge ruled it was not necessary to pursue the case, as plaintiff could not succeed in law. There wcr« three counts in the plaintiff's statement; of claim, on each of which he claim. d £100. The first was in consequence of Young representing himself as a special constable, and usirg threats to forcibly eject him from a section of lend in Waikawa, of which he gave up possession from bedi'y fear. The second count was that in consequence of similar representations aud threats he had left thb Niagara State farm settlement, of which, he alleged, he waß a member. The -third coun 4 ; was for damages sustained in consequence of Young reprenrnting himself as agent for tho Southland Land Board and inducing plaintiff to enter into a contract with, the board for acquiring a section, aud that the board afterwards repudiated the contract. At the close of plaintiff's claim, Mr Macdonald, for defendant, applied for a nonsuit ou the grounds that Becker was not in legal occupation of the section, having done the work for which he was put on the section — viz , bush clearing and the sowing of grass seed, for which he had been paid ; that he was not a member of the Ningara State farm settlement ; that the alleged misrepresentations were of matters of law and not of feet ; and that there was uot a tittle of evidence to support tht third couut. After argument, the judge held that there was no case to answer on the second and third counts, bub he was not quite e'ear as to the first comic without further consideration, and in the course of his remarks characterised <he case as a childish one. He said plaintiff ought to have been satisfied with the inquiry held before the Land Board, and not waste his money in bringing the case into the Supreme Court, adding that even if plaintiff succeeded he ccaild only recover very trifling damages. Mr Macdonald, for the defendant, then called Mr Williams, chief commissioner, after whose evidence had been taken the court adjourned until the following morning. On resuming, the judge said it was useless to proceed with the case, is the orjly judgment could be for defendant on the grounds that the plai tiff was not in legal occupation of tbe land He then proceeded to give judgment in terms of your report to-day. It was Mr Hall for plaintiff, and not Mr Macdonald, who said pUintiff had received 30s per acre for felling bush, but the value of labour exp9nded was £3. He had, therefore, practically lost 30s per acre. The evidence addaced at the ttial Ehowed others than bona fide settlers or unemployed were desirous of getting the work of bushfelling afc the prices paid by Government.