Crown's Taking Of Kairanga Land Explained

Chronicle (Levin), 30 January 1948, Page 7

Crown's Taking Of Kairanga Land Explained

' ' This land is badly needed at the present time for the settlement of exservicemen. It inight app'ear that the i Orown has.adopted a hard attitude toward the wishes of a deceased person, but I would submit that this is not a case for sympathv or sentirnent," stated the representative of the Orown, Mr. W. J. Beveridge, at a. sitting ot the Wellington Ru'ral Land -Saies Committee in Palmerston North on Wednesday wlien explaining the motives which actuated the Crown in seeking tlie acquisition of an area of land in the Kairanga. The area eoncerned comprised 414 ' acres belonging to the estate of the late | A. G. Collins. Objections to the Orown taking the land were lodged by twoseparate parties in respect of two different blocks of the area. Mis^ Ella Foater (Mr. A. M. Ongley) sought the retention of au area of 1015 acres, a life interest in which was bequeathed to her by Mr. Collins. Mrs. ,JD. J. Sinith, of Palmerston North, a daughter of deceased, souglit the retention of 70 or 80 acres of the estate left by her father to herself and sister on whieli to establish her 19-year-olci daughter, or alternatively to be farmed by herself and her husband. The area she sought included that on which were sited the homestead aua irarm buildings. Miss Foster gave evidence that she had been housekeeper to the late Mr. Collins for 15 years. Apart from her work in the liouse, she said,' she had done a considerable araount of farm work and sinee the death of Mr. Collins she' had farmed the 108 acres herself. The land was earrying 430 sheep, 13 bullocks, 290 lam.bs and 15 dairy heifers. The bloQk had no buildings on it and she was" endeavouring to purchase an adjaeeut area on which to .build'a hoine. If she were suecessful iu this she would live on the place and would farm the property herself. The life interest in the 103 acres had been willed to her by Mr. Collins betauso ot her services toJiim as housekeeper. Mrs. Smith gave evidence that she had worked for her father on the farm for a great manv years as a girl without anv pay or privileges. Her daugh ter was friendly with a young farmer and if thev became married,. said witness, she hoped to settle them on the farm. However, if this did not take place she was fnlly prepared to farm the area herself with the assistance ot her husband. Both of them had had previous farming experience. Mr. Smith told the counuittee that hc had a one-iifth interest in two 70-acre t'arms at Bunnythorpe. . A Crown valuer stated that the lotai area was suitable for subdivision into seven 62-acre dairy units i'o.' ex-serviee-nien capable of producing 10,500 Ibs. oi butterfat. Sixty acres would make a good, oconoinic unit. In this case, said Mr. Beveridge, neither of the objectors could be considered experienced farmers. It was the considered opinion of the Crown that neither party was enti.tled to the pro tection of tiie retention clauses in the Land Act. What would be Ihe position, • he tulked) if- the -tvw *4jbjectomwwtte ordinarv purcliasers seeking the acquisition of land'. suitable for the settlenient of ex-servicemen? He submitted their claims would not be considered It was not a case for syiupathy or senti inent, but rather oue in which a re&iiH tic' attitude must be adopted. Iusbfar as Miss Foster was eoncerned the' proceeds from the sale of the land would be not incohsiderable and she could expet't aboul £180 a ydar. Mrs. Smith tived with her husband in a house in the city where Mr. Smith was employed in a commercial position. The eonimittee reserved its decision.