CROWN LEASES.

Hokitika Guardian, 15 January 1926, Page 4

CROWN LEASES.

ILLEGAL PARTNERSHIP. DECISION OF LAND BOABD. [■ST TELEGRAPH —PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.] GISBORNE, January 14. A somewhat unusual case came before the Gisborne Land Board to-dav which involved the question of whether a. tenant could take in a pnrtnei unknown to the Board, and he considered as occupying the section exclusively for his own personal use and benefit, and not, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of some other person. Under the conditions governing small gracing runs it its distinctly laid down that the lessee must farm the land concerned for his own use and benefit. A

statement placed before the Board showed that at the November meeting. L. J. Spence made application to sub-divide Bun 41, and transfer it to H. L. Spence. 'l'. B. Spence and IT. C. Spence. On an investigation l>eing made, it was found that J. it. Spence had taken his brother, T. B. Spence, into partnership .soon after the original lease was granted in 1900, and the partnership still existed. The solicitors for the parties were then called on to show cause why their section should not l>e forfeited. Tile case, continued the statement, was a serious one, and if ft was considered that only a technical breach was- committed then a similar partnership would have to be allowed on all Crown leases. In other words, the Board would have to be careful not to create a precedent. It was reported that such partnerships were fairly common in this district, and if such wrrs the case, it was essential that publicity should bo given to the fact that they were illegal.

In the course of a long discussion by the members, the Commissioner, Mr E. H. Farnie, said the Act aimed at preventing dumniyism, hut there was no question of. anything like that in the present case. Members generally, were of opinion that only a technical breach had been committed. It was finally decided that the partnership was a breach of the conditions

of the lease, and that the parties ho called on to dissolve it immediately. Otherwise, forfeiture would have to be considered.