The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1872.

Evening Star, Issue 2853, 11 April 1872, Page 2

The Evening Star THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 1872.

The Waste Laud Board have got into another wrangle, and, according to Mr Connell, it is of their own bringing on. This time they are sticklers for carrying out the letter of the law, but it is by no means certain that their view of the law is a correct one. Mr Q. F. B. Poynter is the victim this time. We do not know his political opinions : for aught we know to the contrary, he may be a staunch supporter of tlie Beid policy, but being a runholder, this is open to doubt. Whether so or not, however, he is entitled to be justly dealt with, and, as the case appears at present, he seems to have been most unwarrantably played with. The matter stands thus ; Under the Hundreds Begulations Act, a clause proposed by Mr Beid, conferred upon the runholders the pre-emptive right to purchase 640 acres, provided they gave notice of their intention to do so within twelvemonts after passing of that Act. Within the specified time Mr Poynter did make application to buy 640 acres, and submitted a sketch of his proposed purchase to the Board, which was approved. Thus far all seems to have gone straight, and probably every thing would have been done decently and in order, but for the action of the Board itself. As we understood the statement of Mr Connell yesterday, which, in fairness to the Board, we ought to say was entirely rr narlc, application was made by Mr Poynter to be allowed to make the survey of the pre-emptive right by his own surveyor. By the Waste Land regulations, the survey is required to be completed and the plans submitted to the Board within four months after the approval by the Board of the application to purchase. How, it appears that certain district surveyors have been appointed by the Board, whose surveys they accept as authorised. The Board would not concede the privilege to Mr Poynter allowed to Mr Clarke, of employing his own surveyor, but required the survey of the pre-emptive right to be made by the District Surveyor. From whatever cause—whether want of time or inclination does not appear ■ it is sullicient to say that the plans were not ready at the end of four months, and in consequence the Board contends that Mr Poynter has forfeited all claim to purchase his preemptive right of 640 acres. Mr Connell’s contention is that had not the Board interfered to prevent the survey being made by a surveyor employed by Mr Poynter, and insisted on its being made by Mr Adams as their only re cognised surveyor, the plans would have been completed within the required time, and Mr Poynter accepted as the purchaser. Mr Connell very properly argues that the Board having themselves caused the interruption which prevented the regulations being complied with, Mr Poynter should not be made the sufferer ; and this view is so consistent with justice and common sense, that none but a Waste Land Board would hesitate about the matter. But they do hesitate, and that on most frivolous grounds. The whole question is one of simple fact that can be easily ascertained, and once established, both parties should be content to abide by them. But the tendency of our Waste Land Board seems to be to refine its decisions to the quibblings of law without its logic. Mr Clarke, for instance, was allowed to make his own survey : Mr Poynter is not allowed. Had he been permitted to do so, and failed to fulfil the regulations, he would have been the author of his own wrong, and could not reasonably complain. Mr Connell pointed to another case in which the Waste Land Board had allowed a purchase under nearly similar circumstances, and was met bv Mr Bathoate with “There

was no tender by Mr Poynter within the specified time, of four months.” As a matter of justice, assuming that 1 the Board’s interference caused the delay, Mr Connell’s answer was unanswerable. “ There could be no tender, tor the plans were not sent in, so the amount could not be tendered. You must clearly admit it was your own fault.” So the upshot of this affair is a sort of dog and monkey fight at pretty expeuce to both sides. Mr Poynter has taken legal advice, which fortifies him in his view on the statement of a case laid before Mr Macassey. The Board consult their own legal adviser : so the dog is in the wood and the monkey up the tree. Each snarls at the other at a distance, and Mr Poynter on one side, and the Province on the other, have to pay the fees. It is quite possible both lawyers may give strictly correct and opposite opinions, seeing that no agreed case is placed before them, and after heavy legal expenses are incurred, the affair ' may be as far from being settled as before. We commend a searching inquiry by the Provincial Council into the per centage on various sales of land incurred in legal expenses through the muddles of the. Waste Land Board. We fear, after they are deducted, the proceed finding its way into the Provincial coffers will be found to be much diminished.