MUST RESIDE.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1709, 28 March 1913, Page 8

MUST RESIDE.

■ APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION 4 " " REFUSED. An interesting case of the non-residence of a settler under tlio Lauds for Settlement Act, 1908, came before the District Land Board yesterday. Tho settler attended in person, and stated hisycase. His holding, was eighteen, miles from Masterton. He had a family of grown-up daughters, who found employment in Masterton. For this reason ho found it inconvenient to permanently resido on his settlement, but as he lived there three times a, week on an average, tho'thought he was complying with tho Act. The settler said he derived his solo income from ■the ' farm; it was the only occupation he had, and he wished to place his agfcd 16, on the farm when lie came of age. The applicant said that he did not wish to give offence to tho board, but if there was no alternative to continuous residence on tho land, lie Was rot going to take his family out there to live. The commissioner, Mr. T. N. Brodrick, said that tho applicant had written that on account of family reasons lie could not resido on his holding. Mri Brodrick pointed out. that the law demanded that a man must resido continuously on his section,i otherwise it would be forfeited. What was being done was contrary to the law. The applicant 'must make the section his permanent homo, and ho could not seo how the board could give consideration to the application for exemption from actual or partial residence. The board knew, the applicant .was not using the secifcion as his permanent home, and that the charge was not' made recklessly. "I hold," lie continued, ."that 110 man has a right to fake up Such land unless ho complies with the conditions," • The ranger's report, which was read, recorded that -the applicant's farm was on an excellent road, where, a mail was delivered daily, with a school about a mile distant. The annlicant had never lived on tlio .section since he bought it. somo two years ago. ' Mr. Ellinghnm, a member <of the board, said tho applicant had bought five acres close 'to Masterton, so that his daughters could get occupations in tho town. He had Known the settler for many years: he was an excellent settler. He was certainly, complying with the spirit, if not the letter of the Act. However, he was not complying with the Act, and the board had to sec that done. Mr. Dawson, another member of the board, said he felt sure they would get better settlers and fewer speculators if tho Act could bo relaxed. In this case tile applicant had been forty years in the Dominion—a pioneer settler. The commissioner added' that after hearing Messrs. Ellinpham and Dawson it appeared clear thait tho applicant Was a good sfttler, but if exemption was granted in this case, others would exnect simi /or treatment, 'and the whole system would go by the board. Moreover itlio applicant took up the tone that he had no intention of complying with the Act The commissioner moved that the apnliU™ com P° lle,! to resido on. his sccThe motion was held ovec to be die cussed in committee. After discussion in rmimitlee the motion was carried, and it was resolved that the applicant bo compelled 'to reside.