APPEAL COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXII, Issue 12437, 9 April 1908, Page 5

APPEAL COURT.

The Otekaike Oase

(Per United Press Association).

WELLINGTON, April 8. . In the Appeal Court the Hon. Dr Findlay, for the Board, contended that the Board had absolute discretion under section 80, of the Act as to whether they would grant preference to employees who had been deprived of employment. They also had power to refuse to put section 80 in force before the land was thrown open for selection, and if they refused to act in applications under that section no person would, be aggrieved and there would be no right of appeal to the Supreme Court. He further contended that the Board had no jurisdiction to decide, whether the plaintiffs had fulfilled the" qualification under section 80, that being a question of, law. In deciding in plaintiffs' favour the Board had misinterpreted the law in the Act being ultra vires and was in consequence a nullity. The^Joard's, confirming the resolution was not with the Minister's approval, and he claimed that the Minister's approval must be before, but the grant in this case was subsequent. Finally, he contended that the plaintiffs did not fulfil the qualifications prescribed by section 80. Mitchell was not manager of the Otekaike station, but of the Plains Station — a subordinate station to Otekaike — which was not sold to the Government. The intention of section 80 was that it should apply only to employees on the land acquired. As to McKellar, he was actually in the employ of the owner when he made the application, and therefore had not lost his employment. Mr Solomon, also for the Board, followed, contending that the Supreme Court has ample power to review the decision of the Board, as land under the Land for Settlement Act was not 'in the same category as Crown lands, and was only in respect of Crown lands. The decision of the Board on questions of fact were final and conclusive. Even if the provision applied to the decision under the Land for Settlement Act it applied only to decisions on a question of fact directly arising from their duties, and not to preliminary questions on which to found their jurisdiction. Their decisions on such preliminary questions were open to review. Mr Hosking will reply to-morrow.