Crown Leases.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 15, Issue 31, 19 April 1904, Page 4

Crown Leases.

FURTHER DISCUSSION OF TRAFFICKING QUESTIONS. At their last meeting the Marlborough Land Board returned to the question of trafficking in Crown lands, when the application for a transfer of small grazing run 97, Hundalee, from J. Couper to T. Lascelles, came up for further consideration. The case was re-introduced by a notice of motion from Mr Reader that the matter be re-heard. Mr McCallum, who appeared for Mr Lascelles in the recent Supreme Gout case, was present, and had with him the copy of a summons that he had had served on Mr Couper, occupier of run 97, calling upon him to attend the Board’s meeting so that he might *• use every endeavour ” (according to the terms of his agreement with Mr Lascelles) to get the sanction of the Board to the transfer. Mr Couper was not present. The Chief Justice’s decision in the appeal case T. Lascelles v. Marlborough Land Board, which was published in these columns, was read. The judgment held that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal. Mr McCallum addressed the Board at length. He asked the Board to re-consider its decision in declining to sanction the transfer, and to take the greater care because its decision had been found to be unappealable. He submitted that, the proposed transferee being a suitable tenant and having complied with the requirements of the Act, the Board should sanction the transfer. The Board should act as the owner of private property would act in the matter of sub-letting. Admitted that in paying /2000 the proposed transferor would be giving to the transferor £7OO beyond the value of improvements; but the Ranger’s valuations never represented a tenant's full expenditure, on the property. It was true that there would still be a considerable margin of profit in the transaction; but he submitted that the Board should not concern itselfwith the amount of consideration money fixed between buyer and seller. If the Board did so it would render the leasehold system unpopular, and strengthen the case for the freehold. The Chief Justice hinted that in his opinion the reasons set out by the Board (such as trafficking in Crown Lands, the representations contained in the letter from Mrs Couper, etc.) were not real reasons why a transfer should be declined. He (Mr McCallum) admitted that Mr Lascelles blundered in treating with Matson and Company, of Christchurch, for a sale of the property before securing it. But the offer came from Matson and Company, and Lascelles, who paid a deposit of /too ' to Couper, named what he considered an impossible price (/5500) with the object of putting them off. It was then, Mr McCallum suggested, that the desire of Couper to stick to the property became evident. After paying Couper for the stock, etc., Lascelles would have mads £1590 profit on the Christchurch offer ; but he says that he never had the slightest intention of selling. As soon as he saw the advertisement in the Christchurch papers be wired to Matson and Company to withdraw it. The correspondence relating to the application for a transfer was then read, together with the Board’s statement of a case for the Supreme Court. The communication to which chief importance was attached was one from Mrs Couper, who asked the Board not to sanction a transfer, representing that she was pecuniarily interested in the property, and that she did not wish to leave

a home which had been built up at considerable cost and labour. There were also letters from three settlers protesting against the proposed transaction, though one of these settlers subsequently withdtew his hostility. \ The motion that the case be re-hean} was carried. \ Mr Reader said that in connection^ with the refusal to sanction a transfer he'.was , solely influenced by Mrs Couper’s letter. In view of fresh light thrown on the case that did not influence him n >w. He coiy tended, as at previous meetings, that on v broad principles the Bowd had no right to \ step in between buyer and seller. % Mr Renner, after dealing with the ■, circumstances of the transaction, opposed . y the proposal to sanction a transfer. As far v| as trafficking in Crown lands and interests \ of the State were concerned, he argued on the one side that the tenant was getting more than he was entitled to, the value of the property having been impiensely enhanced by public works ; and contended on the other side that the circumstances were of such a nature as to justify the Board in refusing a transfer. It was the duty of the Board to conserve the interests of the State in the Crown lands. Mr Redwood said that he gave his vote in the first place solely in consideration of Mrs Couper's letter. On broad principles he held the view that the British spirit of liberty of trade should’ prevail. They should, too, guard the popularity of the lease in perpetuity, and not compel a man to remain on a section against his will. The Commissioner said that he held somewhat the same views ; but in this case there were peculiar circumstances, and the evidence was so conflicting that ha thought it would be wise to allow matters to remain in statu quo. Mr Seymour expressed the opinion that the case was one that should be re-opened. . Mr Reader moved, and Mr Seymour seconded, that the resolution refusing sanction to a transfer be rescinded. Mr Renner maintained that such a motion would require notice. He moved an amendment that the case be adjourned for-a month, and that the decision be given then, so as to allow of the subpoening of Mrs Couper to appear before the Board, After discussion, the amendment was carried, the voting being Ayes, Messrs Renner, Redwood and the Commissioner; noes, Messrs Reader and Seymour. Mr Reader gave notice of motion rescinding the resolution passed at the meeting on gth February last refusing a transfer from Couper to Lascelles.— Times.