THE NEW LAND ACT AND AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLDERS.

Evening Star, Issue 3112, 8 February 1873, Page 2

THE NEW LAND ACT AND AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLDERS.

An important point affecting leaseholders has been settled by the Waste Land Board, under the 02nd clause of the new Land Act. According to the opinion of Mr Barton, to whom the question was submitted in the absence of the Provincial Solicitor, the holder of an agricultural lease under the Gold fields Act is entitled, after having been in possession of the land for a period of three years, and having complied with the conditions of the Act, is entitled to exchange bis lease for one under the new Land Act, by which he is enabled to secure the freehold of his land by paying 17s 6d an acre for it; such payment to be extended over seven years, and to be made in fourteen equal instalments. We give Mr Barton’s opinion in full

The amount of purchase money payable for the fee simple of land, under Sec 02, is 17s Cd for each acre or fraction of an acre. It is to be paid in fourteen half-yearly instalments in advance, extending over a term of seven years, to commence from the date of the new lease given in exchange for the old lease granted under the Act of 1800. I have come to this conclusion from the following provisions of the Act of 1872, section 02, entitles the holder of an agricultural lease, who has been in occupation for three years, and has complied to date with the covenants of las lease, to receive in exchange for such lease a new lease, under the Act of 1872, of 200 acres, including the land then in his occupation. Section 54, part 5, requires the lease to be for seven years, at a rent of 2s Gd per acre and fraction of an acre, payable in advance, in fourteen half-yearly equal instalments. Section 7!) entitles the lessee, upon payment of the whole fourteen instalments, and upon performance of the covenants of his lease, to receive a Crown grant for the fee-simple of his land. From these provisions I draw the conclusion first above set forth. The only that presents itself is that the concluding portion of section 02 refers to a provision elsewhere in the Act, whereby “the purchase money may be paid by ten equal instalments.l can find no such provision anywhere ; and as fourteen equal instalments spread over three years are manifestly more advantageous to the lessee than ten equal instalments, I cannot see that the lessee would _be entitled to complain if his lease provided for fourteen half-yearly payments, instead of ten equal payments (even if spread over the three years). There is nothing in the Act requiring these ten payments to be paid at any particular time, but under the discretionary powers vested in the Board, I apprehend it might fix the dates of such payment by any times it pleases, provided that the payments themselves be divided into ten equal instalments. The difficulty, however, if there be any, might perhaps be avoided by the insertion of a clause, such clause giving the applicant the option of selecting the mode of payment, either by ten or by fourteen instalments. In my opinion, once the applicant had expressed his option, he would be bound by it, and could not afterwards complain that the payments were illegally provided in the subsequent lease. Ido not, however, recommend this course, I think there is no need for it to be taken.