APPEAL COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 12435, 7 April 1908, Page 7

APPEAL COURT.

An Interesting Case.

(Per United Press Association). WELLINGTON, April 7.

In the Appeal Court argument began in tiie OtekaUe case. It is a case brought by Mitchell and McKellar against the Utago Land Board and removed for' judgment into the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs have been managers for over five years of two stations in the Oamaru district owned by Robert Campbell and Sons, which in 1907 were acquired by the. Government for closer settlement. Plaintiffs applied for two of the allotments without competition by ballot under section 80 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1907. The Board decided that plaintiffs were entitled to apply without competition, and granted the- application, subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands. In January the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago intimated that the Minister's approval had been £iven, but on the 6th February the Commissioner intimated that doubts had arisen as to the legality of the grant, and plaintiffs were summoned to attend before the Board on February 12th to answer such questions and give such information as desired. The plaintiffs attended, arid their counsel protested against the jurisdiction of the Board to hold any furfer enquiry after having once made the grant. Subsequently evidence was given and the Board confirmed its former decision'to make the grant. After a good deal <#' correspondence between the Minister and plaintiffs' counsel, the Minister intimated, early in March, that it was not intended to approve of the action of the Board. On March 7th the sections allotted plaintiffs were advertised for open selection,- whereupon the plaintiffs commenced this action against the Commissioner, claiming an injunction to restrain, them front ballptting .for, sections, and a writ oi nAndamus to compel ''them to grant the leases to plaintiffs. Defendants admitted tbjs facts, but claimed that plaintiffs were not entitled to the grant under section Bti'aad that it had no power to make a grant, and further the grant was subject to the approval of the Minister, who had incontrollable discretion in the matter. It was admitted the Minister had approved of the decision of the Board, but noTease having actually been granted, he had power to cancel his approval.

WELLINGTON, April 7. Argument has concluded in the Appeal Court in the case Feilding Borough v. Feilding Gas Company. Judgment was rese^rved.'