MAKARORA STATION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3870, 15 May 1928, Page 17

MAKARORA STATION.

OBJECTION TO TRANSFER. CONSIDERED BY LAND BOARD. At the meeting of the Otago Land Board on Thursday consideration was given to a letter from Messrs T. Carruthers and James A. Stewart, of Middlemarch, who objected to the granting of a transfer of the leasehold land on Makarora Station to Mr Joseph Cowie Nichols. The writers stated that it was with great astonishment that they read in the Otago Daily Times that the station had been sold, and their surprise w’as still greater to see the transfer had been granted to Mr Joseph Cowie Nichols. They said that without going into details this must undoubtedly be a case of land aggregation—a condition which, they felt, had always been rigidly opposed by the board, and they felt that such a transfer could have been granted only with great reluctance on the board’s part, and possibly without a true realisation of the wish on the part of the landless settlers to acquire properties of this description. It was their wish to lodge with the board at once their objection to the completion of the transfer. It was stated that Mr Carruthers had been farming in the Middlemarch district on a small holding carrying 600 sheep for 20 years, and that Mr Stewart had been brought r.p on the land, and had had considerable experience of working high country. At present Mr Stewart held no land. The writers stated that they both knew Makarora Statical, and considered that at the price at which it could be acquired they, as practical men, could improve it and make it pay. They added that financially they were in a position to effect a purchase, and were prepared to pay the price at which it was sold to Mr ' Nichols. “ Surely,” stated the letter in conclusion, “no other reasons are necessary for the reconsideration of your present recommendation, or at least for you to grant us an interview with your board before its recommendation has been forwarded to the Minister of Lands.”

Mr J. M. Paterson appeared before the board on behalf of the objectors. The Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr R. S. Galbraith) stated that the transfer had been granted at the last meeting of the board. Mr Nichols's name was the only one before the board. The property had been on the market for a considerable time, and Mr Nichols purchased it at the vendor’s request. Mr Paterson said the facts were completely given in the letter to the board. The sheep returns for• the year ended April 30, 1925, showed Mr Nichols as the owner of 10,585 sheep, and the return for the year ended April 30, 1926, showed that he owned 10,500 sheep. A search in the Southland registry showed that 7377 acres of freehold land in the Hokonui district had been transferred by Mr Nichols to Miss Nichols on May 1, 1924, in pursuance of an agreement for sale, dated March 22. The consideration was f 17,238. If the sheep mentioned were carried on this property—and they must assume that thej- were until Mr Nichols denied it—then the property was worth a great deal more than the sum which Miss Nichols paid for it. He proposed to ask Mr Nichols for details of that transaction with a view to showing that on the price he must still retain an interest in the property. The Commissioner said that perhaps it would be as well to ask Mr Nichols to put forward his side of the case before asking any questions. _.At this stage it was stated that Mr Nichols was shown as the owner of 11,810 sheep- in the returns for 1927. Mr Nichols said he did not desire to make a statement, but if any questions ■were put to him through the commissioner he would answer them to the best of his ability. Mr Paterson asked if the return for 1927 was a correct one. Mr Nichols said he did not make out the return. His manager made the return out, but it could be taken as correct. In reply to further questions Mr Nichols said the sheep were registered in his name, and had his brand on them, but they did not. belong to him. With the transfer of the land a certain portion of the flock had been transferred to his elder daughter. Mr Paterson said the sheep could belong to only one person. Why did Mr Nichols make the return in his name? Mr Nichols said the brand and the earmark had not been altered since 1902. The sheep were transferred to his daughter by book entry. Mr Paterson: Can Mr Nichols say to whom they belong? The Commissioner: He says they are in his name, but that some of them be-

long to his daughter. Mr Nichols said that 2000 sheep belonged to his daughter. It was his intention before he went away to transfer 2000 every year until the flock was exhausted. The process of transfer was still going on, and eventually the sheep would not belong to him. He could not transfer more than 2000 sheep in any one year. He still owned about 9800 sheep. He. admitted that a property of 7377 acres in the Hokonui district was transferred to his daughter on May 1, 1924; for £17,238. She was then 21 years of age. He had no interest whatever in that property. Mr Paterson: Does Mr Nichols consider that £17,238 was a fair price for a property carrying 10,000 sheep? The Commissioner: I do not think that is a relevant question. Mr Paterson: Are not the stamp duty people investigating that at present? Mr Nichols: No. I do not think that is relevant. That is going into my personal affairs. What we are here to consider is whether my declaration was correct or not. Mr Paterson: I suggest That we are here to see that the public interest is carried out according to the policy of the board. The Commissioner said that'Mr Nichols was the transferee, and his was the only name before the board. The board had no power to rescind’ its decision unless it could be shown that false representations had been made. . Mr Paterson said the transaction - had not been completed yet. The board could

always reopen a question if it found that fraud had been committed. The Commissioner said that if fraud were shown the board could forfeit the lease.

Mr Paterson: Will Mr Nichols absolutely deny that he has had any trouble with the Stamp Office? The Commissioner: I do not think that is relevant. Mr Paterson: It is an evasion of the Stamp Duties Act to transfer a property where there is a reservation on the part of the donor.

The Commissioner: I do not see that that affects the Land Board in this case. What you want to bring out is that there is something wrong in Mr Nichols’s declaration.

Mr Paterson: No. I want to establish that Mr Nichols still has an interest in land other than that to the transfer of which he has got your consent. He may have made his declaration in perfectly good faith, but he may be mistaken.

Mr G. Black, who was associated with Mr Nichols, asked Mr Paterson how he proposed to show that Mr Nichols was interested in the land which he had transferred to his daughter. Mr Paterson:* The insufficiency of the price raises the presumption. Mr Black: No.

Mr Paterson: It is for the Land Board to say whether £17,000 was a fair price for land carrying 10,000 sheep. Mr Black: It was not carrying 10,000 sheep. That is only half the property. The other half is transferred to the other daughter. That was fixed up long before he thought about Makarora. Mr Paterson: Then he is the owner of some 9800 sheep on the property at present. He is to all intents and purposes the owner of the property and is getting the benefit of it. The Commissioner said he did not think there was any objection to Mr Nichols grazing sheep on his daughter’s property. Mr Nichols: I pay agistment. Mr Paterson: How much? Mr Nichols: That is my business. Mr Paterson: I suggest it is the Land Board’s business. The speaker suggested that the owner of the sheep was the owner of the land and that this was a case of land aggregation. The Commissioner asked Mr Nichols if he had any interest in the land, and the latter replied that he had absolutely none. He had an agistment from month to month. Mr Inder: Was the second half transferred before you heard about Makarora? Mr Nichols: It was completed before I thought about Makarora., There was no question of pushing the transfer through in order to secure Makarora. I had the matter in my mind before I went to England in 1925, but my daughter was under age, and it had to stand over till I came back. My part of it was finished before ever I heard about Makarora. The board decided to take no further action.