IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3752, 25 July 1883, Page 4

IMPORTANT LEGAL DECISION.

[by telegraph.] Dunedin, This day

At the Supreme Court yesterday Judge Williams gave the following decision in the case of Johnston v. the Waste Lauds Board, on a motion to compel tho Board toissuealicen.se to the plaintiff for agricultural deferred payment land at StrathTaieri: — I think this caso must be decided on the simple ground that it has been a decision of the Board by which tho Board refuses to issue the license, and that as in such acaso the Land Act provides a complete remedy by appeal, therefore a mandamus -will not go. The case Archer v. Brittian, 2 "Ncav Zealand Appeal Cases," 318, deoided on an interpretation of precisely similar provisions in another statute, is conclusive to show that if the Board have arrived at a decision an appeal is the ouly remedy. It appears to mo that the resolution of the Board of the 11th of April ■was a refusal to issue the license to the plaintiff unless tho plaintiff applied personally to the Board. Now, if the Board bad no right to impose upon the plaintiff as a condition of the issue of his license that he should attend personally, such a resolution Avould be in law equivalent to an absolute refusal to issue the license, and the Board having so refused to issue the license the plaintiff would be immediately in a position to appeal. Tho plaintiff's case, however, must rest upon the assumption that the Board had no right to impose any condition, because if the Board had such a right tho plaintiff has not complied with the conditions, and is therefore out of Court on that ground. That the refusal to issue a. licenso is a decision from which tho party aggrieved can appeal I have no doubt at all. The Board allege that their refusal is justified by tho statute. If the Board have placed ail erroneous interpretation upon the statute, aud have in consequence determined to act in a Avay Avhich Avill injuriously affect the rights of any person, tlio person who asserts ho is thus "injured has clearly a remedy under section 30. On the foregoing grounds, therefore, and apart from tho other questions raised in the case, I am of opinion that tho defendants are entitled to succeed. I see no ..asm at all, moreover, for supposing that the Board, if they have grounds for suspecting that a purchaser is not qualified under the provisions of the Act to tako up land, or that the statements in the declaration are untrue, would not bo justified in making some enquiry on the point before issuing the license. Certainly I think they Avould be justified in requesting the purchaser to attend personally, and I am inclined to think that the provisions of section 9-1, Avhich enact that a deposit is to be forfeited if the purchaser neglects or refuses to lake up tho license, contemplate a personal attendance for that purpose. 'Whether or not tho Board, for the purpose of prosecuting such an enquiry, have the power of sunimoning witnesses under subsection 7 of section 25 is a more doubtful question, but there is no need now to decide it. The motion is dismissed with, costs.