A DISPUTED CLAIM

Hokitika Guardian, 17 May 1928, Page 2

A DISPUTED CLAIM

A LAND BOARD AiATTER

THE OBJECTOR UPHELD,

It will be remembered that in our report of the April meeting of the Westland Land Board reference was made to an application by George Steele for the river frontage, an area of 200 acres, to a section of land at Koiterangi known as tlie AJaori Block. An objection was raised by W. Jeffries, who held a section of 24 acres in the area which had heen sub-divided for the convenience of the owners and mortgagees and mortgagors. Air Bates of Christchurch, appeared for the applicant and Mr Murdoch for the objector. At that meeting considerable warmth was shown by tlie parties, the discussion proving of considerable' interest, and alter a lengthy hearing, the application was adjourned for a month; with a suggestion from the Board that the parties meantime endeavour to come to a mutual settlement of what was a somewhat involved pn.-ition. At yesterday afternoon’s meeting of the Beard the application again came up for hearing. Air Bales, of Christchurch, who appeared for the applicant, stated an agreement had boon eenie to between the parties whereby hi- client (Steele) was to lease the area field by tlie objector (Jeffries) for a term of 1 1-3 years at an agreed rental. the leave to terminate in the event ol' the win.!.' of the area (known as Hie .Maori Block) being sold. They had not heen able to agree as to the right to lh(> lease of the river frontage, and he asked for a grant for same for his client. They wanted the area and thought they were fully entitled (o it under the previous procedure of the Board under similar circumstances. He asked the Board to consider the action of this man who was opposing the grant who had put 200 sheep on the area when at the most lie was not entitled to put on more than 10. If the Board did not grant their application then he felt it would lie necessary to take such other steps to ensure that their application received favourable attention. Air Bates contended that tiie applicant was the only person entitled to tlie river frontage to tlie area applied for and asked that the application be granted. Air Altmloeli, speaking on behalf of his client (ATr Jeffries) said in the first place they were not going to make any threat to the Board if they did not grant his request. They were quite prepared to accept the dictum of the Board. In regard to the arrangement made, Air Alurdoeh said the agreement had only lieen made that morning, and if tlie right to the frontage was granted to his client, he would include that in his lease to Steele. They only desired the right so as to safeguard,his clients’ interests at the end of the lease. A reference had been made'to the placing of 200 sheep on the river frontage. That had been acknowledged at the last meeting when it was freely stated that owing to there being a fierce hush fire on the opposite side of the river and the'sheen being endangered. Air Jeffries, at the suggestion of Air D. Diedriclis, who was present and who was the legal (though not the nominal) owner of the river frontage lease, had driven them to the area, merely to save them from injury. This was simply done owing to stress of circumstances. Surely no exception could lie taken to the action in the endeavour to save the sheep from injury hv the

The Commissioner (Air Aforpeth) said what the Board had to consider was whether the owner of Lot 2 had a right to a portion of the frontage. In regard to the claim of the applicant that previous procedure entitled them to a grant he could only say that if the Hoard was going to be bound down to previous decisions in regard to river frontage then they might as well be a rubber stamp. The Board had the right of independent jurisdiction to deal with matters that came before them. Discussing' the special position arising out of the cutting up of this particular block of land, lie considered the owner of Lot 2 was morally and in equity entitled to a share of tlie river frontage area.

Mr Ward said he had gathered that the sub-division had been made simply to; facilitate the arrangement of certain mortgages. He thought the host solution of the difficulty would lie for the owner of the large block to buy out the whole of the other holders. The sub-division appeared to have been simply a ruse to get over the mortgage troubles. Me agreed with the ('liairinan in his opinion that each holder was entitled to a share in the river frontage.

Mr Clayton differed from the previous speaker, considering that as Lot 2 had no access it had no right to the frontage. Mr 'Chinn considered the Braird should not lie driven from their present practice of giving the right holders of property fronting the river. Tie did not “oo any reason for not continuing thill procedure and ,favored a grant to the applicant Steele.

Mr Ward then moved that the application for the river frontage ho granted in proportion to the areas held by the owners of sections in the block. Seconded by Mr Ryall, who stared that as the lease of the block was now held by one party it would settle matters for several veers.

Mr Clayton moved ail amendment that the application of Steele be granted. Seconded by Mr Chinn. The motion was put. the Chairman, Messrs Ward and Real voting in favour and Messrs Chinn and Clayton against. The amendment was then put. Messrs Chinn and Clayton voting aye. The Chairman then declared the motion of Mr Ward carried.