COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2161, 9 April 1908, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

THE OTEKAiIvE CASE. (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, April 8. At. the Appeal Court, Dr. Findlay, for the Board, contended that the Board had absolute discretion under section SO of the Act as to whether they would grant perferonco to employees who had been deprived of employment. They also had power to refuse to put section SO in force before the land was thrown open for selection, and if they refusod all applications under that section, no person would lie aggrieved, and tlioro woultl bo no right of'appeal to tho Supremo Court. He further contended that the Board find no jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiffs fulfilled tho qualifications under section SO, that being a question of law. In deciding in plaintiffs’ favor, tho Board misinterpreted tho law and their act, being ultra vires, was in coiisequonco a nullity. Tho Board’s confirming resolution was not- with tho Alinister’s approval, and ho claimed the Alinister’s approval must bo before the grunt pin this case it was subsequent Finally, lie contended that plaintiffs did not fulfil tho qualifications prescribed in section 80. Mitchell was not managor of the “Otek.iike” station but of the “Plains” station, a subordinate station to Otekaike, which was not sold to the Government. Tho intention of section 80 was that it should apply only to employees on tho land acquired. As to AfcKellnr, 110 was actually in the employ of tho owner when ho mode tho application, and therefore had not lost liis employment.

Air. Solomon, also for the Board, followed, contending that tho Supremo Court had amplo power to roview the decision ol tho Board as laid under tho Lands for Settlement Act. It was not in the same category as Crown lands, and it was only Hi respect of Crown lands tho decision of the Board on questions of fact was filial and conclusive. Even if tho provision applied to decisions under the Lands for Settlements Act, it applied only to decisions on questions of fact directly arising from tho duties and not to preliminary questions. Their decision on such preliminary questions was open to review. Air. Hoskmg will reply to-morrow.