LAND SPECULATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1764, 31 May 1913, Page 6

LAND SPECULATION.

« ' A GLARING CASK. TRAFFICKING IN" CROWN LEASES.

JUDGE'S SEVERE COMMENT.

(By Telegraph.—Prosa Association.) Auckland, May 30. An important .judgment tewing on the traffic in Crown "leases'was delivered, by Mi. Justice Cooper at tho Supreme Court [this morning. The cas» was the claim of KJeorgo James Edwards against Seth Well) land-Martin Roberts,-and .it was. heard 'before his Honour at recent circuit sit[tings at Hamilton, a point of law having .■been left for the Bench to decide;- - Tho defendants are the holders of 290G cores of "settlement land" at Matamata, and tho plaintiff sued for. an alleged breach of agreement to sell tho leasehold interest in 1000 acres of it. In the course of his judgment, his Honour said: lho defendants have contracted to sell 2GUU acres (in live areas) of the 295G 1 acres held by them, and the total purchase money for these five areas is .£8875/ If these transactions are carried out| and the purchase money paid, defendants will make a profit of over ,£BOOO, and they will sti l retain nearly-400 acres'of land leased, and this area lws also been agreed to-bo sold to someone. The whole _ot these transactions have taken place within the first twelve months of tho term>ot tho lease, and within eighteen months of tho date of the Jcase. This is speculation 'of the gravest kind -in land which was acquired by the Government under *tho Laud tor Settlement Act for purpose of bona tide settlement. In this action tho plaintiff' claims' damages from (the defendant for an alleged breach of an agreement made between him and'the defendants, .who agreed to sell, and the plaintiff to purchase, "the leasehold tjstato and interest" of the vendors in a .block {of land of 1000 acres more or less in the I north-western part of Section 130 of tho . 1 Matamata Settlement. Tho defendants, | while admitting-that the ■ consent oi the Land Board was necessary to the transfer ; of tho laud, denied that such consent was necessary to its possession. Pending tho obtaining of such consent, they denied 'that tho plaintiff was ready to perform • the agreement! That they had refused Ito apply ,to the Land Board for its con'eent to the agreement, and that they refused to give possession to tho plamtilt. They'filed a counter-claim for damages from plaintiff for his alleged refusal to perform the agreement. _ , The question of . law, which his Honour (had been asked to 'decide, wiis' whether tho defendants-had anypower to give .possession of the land in question to the plaintiff, and whether the agreement 'was mot an unlawful one as a contravention of ; the provisions of tho Land for Settlements .Act.. His Honour said the »land leased to' tho defendants is settlement land" within' tho meaning of the ' land for ■ Settlement Act, 1908, required by tho Crown under the Act. It is also rural" land, within the meaning of that Act, and. of tho Land Act. 1908. The term of the lease commenced on July 1, 1011, and tho rental was .£33 a- year, but the lessees, had to pay .£690 for. improvements by the previous owner. The total acreago was 2956. The defendants had, prior to the making of the agreement with the plaintiff, entered into four similar agreements with other pereons to sell their interest in four . tions. They agreed that the purchaso money for. the. 1000 acres to bo sold to the plaintiff was .£3500. The defendants had contracted, to sell 2600' acres of/tho 2956 acres held by them, and the total purchase money ior these hvo areas is "In my opinion," said his Honour, it is clear that the provisions of -the Land for Settlements Act were not .intended to prevent land being acquired by selectors under that Act for any other."purpose than bona-fido 'settlement, and it is the duty of thb .Co.urt to construe, these provisions and 1 these of the Land Act, 1908, in such a way. as to give effect, if possible, to, .the manifest . intention. .of tho

Legislature. His Honour went on'to say that the Land for Settlement Acts frbm the time of the' first"Act' of -1892_ Tip- to the passing of tho present Act in 1908 ■were also intended' to provide 'a means by which "landless" persons'desirous of becoming" bona-fide settlers should be able to obtain land, the restrictive provisions to effect this becoming from time to time more stringent. It was enacted- in: See-. ; tion 9 of the Lands for Settlement Act,. 1901, that every applicant should.„resido. continuously upon the section he had obtained. This section now appears as Section 54' of the Act of. 1.998: ■In* 1898';, tha j period within which the successful appli- \ cant "was restricted from disposing of his lease without the consent or tho # Land . Board, or the approval of the Minister, was extended to five years, this ■provision being re-enacted in 1900. and again m 1908. It was found that this was not 'sufficient to prevent land from being'ac-jq-uired for tho purpose of speculation, and lin 1901 the Legislature absolutely, prohiIbited tho transfer of tho land comprised 'in. the lease within tho .period of five ■years,'except, in case of death, or ot some extraordinary event. In 1908 tho urovision was. limited to, I'ural land, being considered as inapplicable to '•town or suburban allotments. ".; . . I His .Honour agreed with the solicitor for the Department that the mischief (which tho Legislature intended to pre- ' vent was the opportunity for dummyism . and the exploiting by land. speculators of land intended for landless persons solely for bona-fide settlement. "The present is a flagrant case of such exploitation," ho. continued "tho defendants havo acquired a lease ostensibly tor bona-fide settlement by them at a rental (of ,£33 a year and a cash payment of i£69o for improvements. Within a few months .after the,date of .the lease they have agreed to sell their interest in 2000 i acres of a block of 295 C' acres for sums ■of money, which, if, the agreements can be carried out, will return tlie'm a net <profit of over. £8000. It is just such ■ transactions as theso that I am satisfied the Legislature intended to forbid. Sec'tion Gsjjiust receive.such fair, large, and liberal e construction and interpretation as will best ensure the object of the enactment in its truo intent, and that object is, I cannot doubt, to prevent applicants who 'are- successful .selectors from •trafficking as being contrary to the pub-, flio good/ * * His Honour .further .ruled . that. apart . altogother from the question of the legality of the contract tho plaintiff had failed to establish a breach of contract ■ by the defendants, -and he ■ gave judgment \ for tho defendants. The defendants' counterclaim: must also fail. Their counsel had suhmittecT that' the contract was ■unlawful and that contention _ would be '■upheld. Tho counterclaim, his Honour .. concluded, was entirely founded upon the : alleged breach by the plaintiff of the ..torms of the contract. Each party was brdered to pay his own costs.