RIVAL CLAIMANTS FOR LAND.

Otago Witness, Issue 3783, 14 September 1926, Page 16

RIVAL CLAIMANTS FOR LAND.

TWO MEN WANT LAUDER SECTION. EVIDENCE BEFORE LAND BOARD. The Land Board was engaged for about an hour and a-half on Wednesday in investigating the claims by two applicants for an area of land, comprising 33 acres, in block IV, Lauder district, the lease ot which is at present held by Matthew M'Cubbin. At its meeting last month the board agreed to reconsider an application (previously refused) by Walter Haig for a lease of the land. The members of the board present were Messrs It. S. Galbraith (Commissioner of Crown Lands), Jas. Smith, T. A. Munro, C. J. Inder, und G. Livingstone Mr W. L. Moore appeared in support of Haig’s application, and M'Cubbin was represented by Mr W. A. Bodkin (Alexandra). Mr Galbraith said it had been represented to the board that, at the last meeting, it had not got the full facts of this case, and it had been decided to notify both parties to attend so that the facts could bo brought out clearly. The ovidence would bo taken on oath, and then the board hoped to come to a final decision. Mr Moore stated that this was the third application for this land. Tha first was turned down on account of vi objection by John Wilson, who stated that the area provided the only water frontage for the atock on his adjoining freehold. That was found to bo incorrect, and o fresh application was put in, hut objection was made by certain miners. That objection was probably inspired.

Mr Bodkin: I object to that unless you can prove it. Mr Moore said he thought he could prove it. The second application was turned down, and then for some reason Mr Wilson transferred the area to his son-in-law (M'Cubbin), who was a returned soldier, but who did suffer from disabilities to the same extent as Haig. The latter had to live at a high altitude, and at present a milk supply was not available for him and his family. liaig required the land for the use of himself and his family. The Returned Soldiers’ Association had approached the board, which had consented to review the position. Walter Haig stated that he was a returned soldier. He was gassed at the war, and was getting a permanent pension. He was born in the district, and had lived there all his life. Ho had been advised medically that he should live in high country, and Lauder was a very suitable place, lie required a lot of milk in his diet. He was married, and had two children—one 1 four years and the other throe years. It was not pofcsiblo to buy milk in Lauder. Mr Moore read statements by a number of residents of the district in support of the contention that thore was no milk 1 supply. Tho witness went on to say that ho had no land of his own He had kept a cow, but it had boon impounded three times. Tho last time it was impounded it cost him £3 15s, and he had to dispose of the cow. The only land he had the use of was one acre belonging to his brother-in-law. Part of that aroa was gravel and stones, and would not graze a goat. Mr Moore then handed in a statement signed by several residents of Lauder expressing the opinion that Haig should get the laud in question. In renly to Mr Galbraith, the witness stated that he had never had oa acre ot

land that he could call his own. He did not have a lease of an education reserve. To Mr Bodkin- Witness did not sell an area of 11 acres recently, and had no interest in it. Witness did not pay any fte3 in connection with the transfer of that area. Witness did not occupy an area of three acres in Lauder towifchip. Witness did not say to the county ranger that if he impounded the cow it- would help him in hi s fight with the Land Board. Mr Bodkin then reverted to the question of the 11 acres, but Mr Galbraith stated that the witness did not handle that land. In reply to Mr Bodkin, the witness admitted that Mr Alexander, one of his neighbours, kept cows. He had never asked Mr Alexander to sell milk to him. William John Alexander, farmer at Lauder, said he had lived in the district practically all his life. About three years ago Walter Haig had expressed a desiFe to get a piece of land, and witness pegged an area out for him. Tho acre ’ Haig’s occupation would not keep a lizard. There was no grass on it at all. To Mr Bodkin: Haig’s predecessor kept four cows, but witness grazed them all except one, which was in milk. Witness could not provide grazing for Haig because ho had sold his property. Haig was an ownor of trotting horses. Haig said he owned one horse with a trotting name, but it had never been on the tracks. It did dutv on the road. Me had no interest •n any other horses. Mr Bodkin submitted that there was no evidence to justify I’’e board in coming to any other conclusion than the one arrived at at the last meeting. When this application was put in in 1923 it was turned down bocause tne warden put in an adverse report. The only officer of the Crown who could investigate as to the merits of the application wn* tho warden. He reported that the land was required for mining purposes. He (Mr Bedkin) submitted that

that decision must be accepted. Unless something happened to alter the position of affairs the board would have no jurisdiction to give any; other title than the miscellaneous lease given to M’Cubbin. The land remained in the position it had been in until M‘Cubbin’s wife purchased an adjoining property from the Pitches estate. As the result of mining tailings coming down the creek was overflowing on Mrs M'Cubbin’s property, and the property had to be faced. The M'Cubbins considered that if they could get a title thev would get over the difficulty with the miners and assist the Vincent County Council in the construction of a new channel, which would clear up the whole position, and an agreement was entered into with the executors of the estate of Elizabeth Wilson. That was made in consideration for getting a more permanent title. The whole position was placed before the Land Board. The agreement would give the City Council the right to construct a new channel through Mr 9 M'Cubbin’s property, and would overcome ti e mining objection by allowing the'miners to deposit tailings on that property. 'lhe channel terminated on the freehold land of Mrs M'Cubbin. It would not go through to the river because the country was so low that it would be futile to construct a channel, as tailings would fill it up. The water was going to go over anything from 10 to 15 acres of the freehold, converting it into swampy and valueless land. The board had granted a transfer, and if it took away the rights granted to M'Cubbin he (Mr Bodkin) submitted that it would be a grave wrong. After outlinging the steps taken i M‘Cubbin to carry out the arrangements made. Mr Bodkin stated that Haigh had simply lain in ambush while -VCubbin did all this work, and immediately the coast was clear he hopped in and attempted to “jump the other man’s rights on the ground that he had previously been a disappointed applicant. Mr Bodkin submitted that tho application must be treated strictly on its merits, and that as the board uad given M'Cubbin an assurance that he would be entitled to the new rround it was in honour bound to grant a new title. Mr Moore: It is the first time 1 have heard that the board had given an undertaking. Mr R. T. Sadd: The board gave no undertaking. , , . , , Mr Moore: I cannot understand tne board giving an undertaking and then providing an opportunity to review the position. If the board has given an undertaking there i-i no use going anv further. Mr Bodkin said he admitted that no undertaking was given, but acquiescence gave consent. He had said this at every meeting he had attented. No undertaking was asked for, but his point was that all the facts were clearly placed before the board and that the board acquiesced and granted M'Cubbin’s application on those facts. M'Cubbin had now acted on that as sufficient, and he (Mr Bodkin) submitted that if anything were done to prejudice him in any would do him a very great wrong. The speaker claimed that it was quite an easy matter to get milk, and said his friend on the other side had not named one individual who had had any difficulty in getting it. His side also claimed' that Walter Haig he’d other land, although the title was in the name of his brother. There was no suggestion that Mr Alexander had been asked, or had refused to supply milk. The document signed by residents of the district was signed chiefly by rabbiters and members of a gang employed by the Vincent County Council. lhe only bona 6de resident known to him (Mr Bodkin) was Mr W. J. Alexander. Haig was certainly running more than one horse although ho might not have any interest in them. If Haig had a cow it would be necessary to travel from four to six miles a day to milk it and there was no doubt that he could get milk from a resident in the district.

Mr Inder: You must admit that a man who is situated as Haig is should have a

Mr Bodkin: Wc admit that he is entitled to milk but we submit that if the board grants an area it would be wrong to grant Haig tho whole of the 33 acres. kt is ridiculous to suggest that he requires all that land to graze a cow. If a grant is made it should be limited to two or three acres at the very outside. His predecessor was able to milk two cows throughout the season. 1 understand that the Returned Soldiers’ Association is absolutely neutral in the case. Matthew M'Cubbin said he was a returned soldier living at Lauder. lie was reeciving a permanent pension and his health was such that he had to live in Central Otago. The muddy creek channel was a source of trouble on his wife’s land, and to overcome the difficulty he entered into negotiations to secure a permanent title. The whole of the circumstances had been placed before the Land Board which had granted an application for a transfer of the title. Negotiations were concluded with the Vincent County Council for making a new. channel through his wife’s property. This was entirely witness’s own application and no one was interested in it except his wife and himself. When Haig s cow was impounded the ranger informed witness that Haig had stated that if he took action it would help him in regard to his application to the Land Board. If witness’s application were granted he would bo prepared to enter into an agreement to allow Haig grazing for two cows free of charge as long as the latter resided in Lauder. Haig had informed, witness that if he (Haig) got the land he would be prepared to sell it to witness. This statement was emphatically denied by Haig To Mr Moore: Witness’s wife owned about 300 acres of freehold land, part of which adjoined the area in dispute. The channel which it was proposed to put through was not going to improve his wife’s land. He did not know whether it would improve his fnther-in-lnw’s property.

The board’s decision was that, the area be divided between the contending parties, the northern portion to he loft with M'Cubbin and tho southern portion to be granted to liaig.