Wednesday, 28th January.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1115, 31 January 1885, Page 3

Wednesday, 28th January.

All tbe members of the Board wore present, and the same oounsel appeared as previously. William Smith, licensee of section 14, block IX., Waitahuna West, said that he was head shepherd to Messrs James Smith and Sons. He lived ten yeais in the neighborhood before he purchased the section. The section was one of 297a 1r lp, and was now all cultivated. When he purchased it he had £700 in the hands of Mr Smith, sen. He had a house on the section, and for the past year and ten months and a few days he bad resided on the seotion. Nobody suggested to him that be should purchase the section. He required no assistance to enable him to acquire the land. He took some of Mr Smith's sheep to feed on some turnip land for a few weeks, aDd got paid by Mr Smith 2d per head per week. Most of the iron material for fencing was purchased by Mr Smilh, sen., in Dunedin, by arrangement with witness, and Mr Smith charged a slight commission.

To Mr Connell : Mr James Smitb had been asked to buy fencing material because it was thought he could get it at a cheaper rate than the man could, and this had been proved to be the case. Witness had been offered payment for his trouble in supervising the fencing, but be had declined to take anything, saying thsy had been neighbors a long time, and it was strange if he could' not do a good turn for them without being paid for it. l'he money paid to Wynur was paid by his (witness's) instructions, out of money of his in the hands of the firm. The other selectors paid him for their share of the fencing in cash, with one exception, and in that instance the settler allowed him 8 per cent, interest. The purchase bad been made in perfect good faith, and be bad left the dividing line between his and Durranb's laud unfenced because it was to their mutual advantage not to fence it. If the fence was erected the ridges could not be advantageously ploughed. The firm of Smith and Sons had nothing to do with this arrangement.

John Gilland, licensee of section 17, block XI , deposed that he was a shepherd employed by Messrs Smith and Sons, but wa9 principally engaged in driving fat stock to Dunedin. Hi 9 rate oi wages was £1 15s a week on the station, an extra £1 a week when driving, and all expenses paid. When be purchased tbe ground he did not require any assistance, having money in the hands of Messrs Smith and Sons. He had now 55 acres under crop, and other 60 acres now being cross-ploughed. Mr J. M. Smith told him that when he first went in for tbe land that if he ever wanted assistance he was to go to him. Witness did not require assistance until February of last year. Altogether he had borrowed from Mr J. M. Smil h £214, which he had expended on improving the laad. The loan was understood to be for 10 yea^s at 6 per cent,, and no security had been given. To Mr Mouat : At the time of the purchase witness had £300 of his own, and the amount was left in the firm's hand?.

William Durrant, licensee of section 13, block ix., said he was a contract ploughman, and had 10 horses. For twelve months after he purohased the section he let Messrs Smith and Sons graze sheep on it at the rate of 2s per acre per annum. Since then he had erected a house on the section. He was worth about £200 in cash when he took up the land. He bad 110 acrps in wheat now. It promised to yield from 35 to 40 bushels an acre. Mr J. M. Smitb had assisted him to the extent of about £500, but against that the firm of Smith and Sons owed him a*>oufc £200 for work done. He had offered a bill of sale over the horses as sesurity for tha loan from the firm, bat Mr Smith said lie was willing to advance tbe money without security. The money had been expended in improvements on tbe land. He was not a regular servant of Smith and Sons, but did contract ploughing for them and for others. Robert Low, a laborer, the purchaser of section 11, block IX., Waitahuna West, was examined, and said that he wished to take up a section and bad been assisted by Mr John Smith to the extent of £300. No security had been given for this advance. William Smith's evidence about the fencing was correct. He was able to earn £3 a week for three months of the year wool-sorting. No one had suggested to him to take up this section ; he had selected it himself because be knew from conversations with the men that it had not been chosen by them. His house had been put up in 1883, but he had not lived in it constantly. It bad cost £40, and had been bought from Mr J. M. Smith. He had made no calculations as to his means of repaying the loa-i. He still owed £73Q for the land, or £1000 including the amount borrowed from Mr Smith. Mr Smith had no stock now running on his land. William Jatnieaon said that be bought bis section at £2 10s an acre. He had about £100 of his own, some of which was lent out at interest, and £70 was in Mr Smith's hands. He had borrowed £350 from Mr Smith, and had expended it on clearing his land, ploughing and fencing it. Qne portion of his fencing he had bought from the runholder at 12s per chain. He had now 50 acres in crop, and 56 acres broken up ready for cropping. He was to get what money he needed for ten years at 6 per cent., but he had never paid any interest He had never promised to give Mr Smith any mortgage over the land, nor was there any agreement of the sort, neither was there a promise to give Mr Smith any security for the money he had advanced.