THE LAND BILL

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 29, 29 October 1920, Page 8

THE LAND BILL

SMALL GRAZING JtUN LEASES

DISCUSSED BY"THE COUNCIL

The Land Laws Amendment Bill was committed in the Upper House yesterday. *

; _In moving tho committal, Sir Francis 1 Bell referred to the alleged grievances of the small grazing run holders in the : Poverty Bay district. He said that in ■ ' the first place these people claimed a limber titlij than the owner of the free- ; hold had in New Zealand. The owner , of the freehold was liable- to have his lands taken for settltemfnt, but the holders of the small grazing runs claim«<l a renewal in perpetuity of the lease of the lands they hold. An Act was passed in 1912 or 191-1 oinpowwing the State, instead of renewing the whole lease, to take a porton of the land for . settlement and pay to tli 8 holder the full value of his improvements on the land taken and the value of the right"of , renewal, ..However, thf>re was . another point. The run holders claimed that : they, had the right of renewal in per-- : petuity at 2J per. cent. Th« : Act did sot mean that to any common-sense individual, and no suoli claim would bo allowed while the present Government remained, in power. ■ Tfcie Hon. J. B. Gow said that the . right of renewal at 2} per cent, had been 'offered to induce men to go out into the wildenwss and settle land that in the absence of the inducement would not : have been settled. The St. Leger case, : which had established the rights claimed the' grazing run holders, , was a test case, and'should have been treated ,as such. Those who had contributed! to the expenws of the case had been prevented by subsequent legislation from 1 benefiting by the decision of the Courts, and ,Mr. St. leger alone had got his title. v • Sir Francis Bell: I believe v the mistake- we made was in exempting St. . Leger. The Hon. 0. Samuel 6aid that this

Meaning of the terms of the lease had .-. been decided by tlie proper tribunal. : After tli.} judgment of the New Zealand j. Courts had been given and had been : supported by the judgment of the Privy Council',, there should have been no fur- '. thi>r question about what, the Legislature meant wlieu it passed the Act in- ' stituting the tenure under discussion. Several other members of the Council dicciissk'd the grazing run tenure, and the clauses of the.Bill dealing with the 'national endowment land. Sir frauds Bell, in replying, said that 1 Mr. Gow had made a splendid advocacy of a'bad case. The fact was that most of the small grazing run' learns were granted -under the Act of 188o.xThnt ' Act-provided for a lease for 21 years , with one .right of. renewal, with tc- ; valuation, at; 21 per cent. In 1892 Sir ; ,Tohn Mackenzie, realising that it would ' be ridiculous'to go on renewing at the. 2-V%er cent, that Vnd been offered, ! diice the. settlers to go out in the first ' place, introduced an amendment proviUJ inc. that- the renewal should he at a ; rental "equal to not bss than 2\ per CP "[ r . (sow: But the Court held that that ' tvi and a half per o;nt. Sir -Francis Bell said he w«f; otpm - iitc to common sense.. In the 1892 Act, ' he° proceeded, somebody made the extra- ' ordinary mistake of leaving in one place ■■ the words "equal to 21 P"™" 4 -- had been in the original Statute The words "not less than!' were nut into the Act by Sir John Mackenzie, but the i' Courts as the result of the mistake rei ferred to, held them to be meaningless. : They W dono what nobody but a lawyer or a Judge could have done—name- ' lv, construed % words "equal trf not ; less than per cent." as meaning "equal to 21 per cent." From 1892 onwards nobody had understood that the ; Tental w/is to be a fixed rental of 21 per cent. The Bill was put through Committee. It was read a third time and passed.