Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

AN EXPLANATION.

A'Dominion reporter last evening, failing to findtlio Crown Lands Commissioner, brought those complaints before the notice of Mr. Kensington; Under-Secretary for Crown Lands. Mr. Kensington said ho belioved thoro wero two sections tliat had-boon withdrawn b.v the Crown Lands Board, and theso. were withdrawn in pursuanco of .a resolution : passed at the board's last meeting, after having heard the claims of lessees. Wlio.ii the Carrington Estate was pi'irohased, there were a number of lessees holding leases from Mr. Booth, and theso bad to provo their rights to sections as provided by law. Ho presumed the board was satisliod tlio lessees were entitled, and that was the reason tlio sections wore withdrawn. The Act stated that any original lessee, when an estate was purchased, had a pre-emptive right to a section, and ho presumed tho Land Board found ou)i that theso persons were original lessees, and were entitled to a section. Questioned as to tlio delay which occurred before' tho applicants wore notified of tho withdrawal of tlio sections, Mr. Kensington , said the Land Board only went up to Carrington two days beforo tho ballot, and they must have then discovered tho rights of tho lessees. The commissioner, however, would bo able to givo a moro definite explanation. Inquiries made locally by a Dominion representative elicited tlio explanation that ono or two sections were withdrawn by tho Land Board, but any applicants for theso sections wero permitted' to substitute anT ' other soction in their placo, right up to the moment of the ballot. Only 011 c person so affected raised any objection, and, at tlio eleventh hour, ho was permitted to go in for another section in tlio ballot. Tho withdrawal of tho sections was advertised a week or ten days beforo tho ballot, and if the author of tho present complaint did not receivo his telegram concerning their withdrawal till a day or two beforo tho ballot, that was probably because ho had not, until then, put in his application.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19090402.2.3.2

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 472, 2 April 1909, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
332

AN EXPLANATION. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 472, 2 April 1909, Page 2

AN EXPLANATION. Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 472, 2 April 1909, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert