THE SOUTHLAND LAND ACTS.—IMPORTANT DECISION.

Dunstan Times, Issue 655, 6 November 1874, Page 3

THE SOUTHLAND LAND ACTS.—IMPORTANT DECISION.

In Banco, recently, (says a Southland contemporary) Mr Justice Chapman delivered judgment in ex parte G. M. Bell, which is a rule nisi granted by his Honor at. Invercargill, calling on the Receiver of Land Revenue there to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding him to receive the purchase money of certain lands applied for under the provisions of the Southland Waste Lands Act, 18G5, to which lands Mr Bell claims to be entitled : On July 7th, Mr Bell’s agent filled up forms of application in accordance with the practice of tbe Waste Lands Board, applying for several parcels of land, 26 in number, which under the provisions of the 26th section of the Act were then open for sale at the price of 20s per acre, and the agent entered the applicant’s name in the “applicants’ hook ” as required by the Act. This hook determines the order in which the names are called and the applications are disposed of. There was a meeting of the Board on July Sth, but in consequence of the press of business the Board adjourned till the 10th, In the meantime—on the 9th —an Order in Council was made by the Governor in Council under the 26th section of the Southland Land Act, 1865, rising the price of land from 20s to L 3 an acre. Of this Order in Council the Board had notice on July 9th, by a telegram from the Superintendent, which was read out at the Board meeting in the presence and hearing of the applicant or his agent. After the several applications of Bell had been heard, the Chairman wrote at the foot of each application paper the words “granted,” with his signature and the date, July 10th; but there was nothing on the face of the paper to show at what price. Other steps were then taken in accordance with the practice of the Waste Lands Office ; but on applying to the Receiver of Land Revenue on a subsequent day, and on tendering the amount computed at 20s au acre, the money was refused and the usual certificate withheld, that officer having had notice of the increase in price and considering himself bound thereby. The principal questions the Court were called upon to determine wore : What constitutes the application ; and whether that application gave Bell a right, under the 26th section of the Act ? A minor question was whether that right was strengthened by the proceedings of the Board, or ■whether it was defeated by the nngazetted Order in Council ? His-Honor in giving judgment, said he could not read the 26th section other than as a statutory engagement to sell at the price fixed (20) at the time of application, provided that the land applied for did not come within any of the specified clauses from the precise terms in which the exemptions were specified ; if not within such exemptions the Legislature intended they should be open to the first applicant. The Board had no discretion outside the statute . and the provisions requiring personal appearance, and directing dismissal of the application eo nomine in case of default, showed that the printed form and the entry of the name in the application book constituted the application. The whole sense of the Land Acts was to open for sale all lands not coming with the exceptions for sale to selection by the first applicant, which seemed the only mode of closing the door against favoritism. The Board evidently took the same view in granting the application on July 10th, notwithstanding the telegram of the 9th, informing them of the order in Council. Any other interpretation would have given a retrospective effect to the order, even assuming it had spoken from its date and not from gazettal, which would have invaded the spirit and letter of the statute no less than its equity. Ho thought that Bell had done all things necessary to entitle him to pay the purchase money of the twenty-six parcels and to demand the usual certificate. The rule was, therefore, made absolute in respect of the twenty-six applications dated July 27th.— Same decision in ex parte Wentworth.— Notice of appeal has been given.—His Honor’s decision, if upheld, involves a loss of L 20.000 to the Province.

The Graphic after reporting a number of cases, in which someL mdon sausage makers were fine ! for selling and having in their possession disgustingly had meat, goes on to say “It is singular to note how many people turn up their noses at the wholesome and nutritions tinned neats from Australia and America, and yet take kindly to these “ bacs of mystery,” in spite of the frequent exposures which have been made as to their manufacture. ”