AKAROA.

Lyttelton Times, Volume III, Issue 149, 12 November 1853, Page 10

AKAROA.

We publish below the petition from Mr. Ad"«ms, of Akaroa, presented to the Provincial Council by Mr. Rhodes, on the 26th October; together with the docu-ments-annexed to it.

To the Honorable the Provincial Council of the Province of Canterbury in Council assembled, The Petition of Thomas Adams, of Akaroa, storekeeper, Humbly sheweth,

1. That your petitioner hath sustained grievous wrongs and losses by the acts of James Campbell, Esq., Commissioner of Crown Lauds, of which the particulars are as follows :— 2. That your petitioner is the proprietor of a plot of land in the town of Akaroa, which he purchase 1 on the sth February, 1852, from Robert D'Oyley, Esq., who was seized of, and legally entitled .to, the same in virtue of a deed of conveyance from the Canterbury Association.

3. That your petitioner had commenced, and made considerable progress in, the construction of a house on the'said land, when "he received a notice'from the said James Campbell, dated 15th September, 1852, warning him. that the land aforesaid was the property of the Crown, and thai if be did not remove the materials within ten days, he would not be allowed to remove them, and that proceedings would be taken against him in the said Commissioner's Court, under Ordinance No 1, of Session X. A copy of the Notice is appended, marked No. 1. 4. That the Ordinance above quoted was not, and is not to this day, in operation within the Canterbury block; for Ordinance No. 10 of Session XL, which extends its operation from New Ulster to other parts of New Zealand, exeepis the Canterbury block in distinct terms ; and that Mr. Campbell was consequently procreding under an Ordinance which had no force in this part of the Colony. 5. That your petitioner, despairing of bringing this fact within the comprehension of the Commissioner, and well knowing the animus which guided his proceedings in all questions affecting the interests of holders of land under the Canterbury Association, addressed a letter to the local Government, praying for protection, of which he sent a copy to Mr. Campbell, and a copy of which is hereunto appended, marked 2. 6. That notwithstanding the said appeal to Government, your petitioner received another notice on the 27th of September, 1852, warning him that if he did not deliver up the said land to the Commissioner within ten days he would be proceeded against as a trespasser under the 6th, 7th, 39th and 40th clauses of the abovequoted Ordinance. A copy of the notice is appended, marked 3.

7. That your petitioner sent this second notice also to Government, praying for protection, and thiit he sent a copy of such appeal to the Commissioner, who returned the same unopened, declining to have any further correspondence with your petitioner. A copy of the letter to Government is appended, marked 4. 8. That the Government eventually declined to interfere. Copies of the letters of Government are appended, marked 5, and 6 9. That »n the I lth October, 1852, a trespass was committed on your petition, r's said land by Joseph Zilhvood, and Thomas Finch Buck, constables, who entered thereon, and pretended to lake possession of the said land, buildin»- and building- materials, and did take an inventory of the said building and building materials, asserting that they were acting under the orders of the said James Campbell, and exhibiting to your petitioner an order under his hand to That effect.

10. That on the22n<l.{of October, 1852, a notice under the hand of the said James Campbell was publicly posted at Akaroa, intimating that jour petitioner's partly built house and all his buiJdiugandeuclosingmaterials would besold by

public Auction, by Joseph Zillwood, Chief Constable, on the 29th. of the same month, on behalf of Her Majesty, Her Heirs, and Successors.

11. That no sort of investigation or trial was ever-held nor any decision given by any Court or Tribunal, competent or incompetent, to warrant or give pretence for the proceeding threatened in the above notice; and that Mr. Campbell in pretending to seize and .disposeof your petitioner's property acted without any other authority than his own will and pleasure.

12. That on the following day (October 23rd) another notice under the hand of the said James Campbell was served on your petitioner threatening that proceedings would be taken against him fov trespassing on Crown Lands, meaning his own land.

13. .That on the 29th day of October, 1852, (the day appointed for, the .sale of your petitioner's property) your petitioner attended for the purpose of preventing such sale ; that several other persons also attended; that on the arrival of the said Joseph Zillwood your petitioner warned him, and all other persons, to abstain from trespassing on his pioperty ; and that the said Joseph Zillwood did not proceed with the sale; but did then and there give public notice that such sale had been postponed by order of the Commissioner.

14. That your petitioner has learned tliat such postponement took place because the said Joseph Zillwood declined to act as Auctioneer, he having been warned that if he did he would subject himself to a penalty of £100 for acting as an Auctioneer, without a License.

.15. That on the 13th of November, 1852, a notice under the hand of the said James Campbell addressed to Joseph Zillwood was served on your petitioner, warning him that he was still keeping forcible possession of the said Crown Land (meaning his own land), and that the said Joseph Zillwood was to be prepared to give evidence in the Supreme Court accordingly. 16. That your petitioner has been kept ever since in a state of suspense, expecting to be subjected to the threatened prosecution in the Supreme Court; but that, nothing farther has ever been done in the "matter that he is aware of. ■ "■■ ","■■■ ■ ■'• "■■ : 17. That it is not only certain, as shown in your petitioner's letter to Government, that the Ordinance under which Mr. Campbell professes to act (No. I of Session X) is not in operation within the Canterbury Block; hut it is . also quite manifest from the whole tenor and spirit of its provisions that it was enacted solely with a view to the occupation of Crown Lands for pastoral purposes, and that the trial of freehold titles as between the Crown and individuals was never contemplated by its framers.

18. That your petitioner being' a poor man could not prudently risk further outlay on the property after Mr. Campbell's vexatious, pro-, ceediugs, and that the building which he had commenced has ever since continued in the same unfinished state, and is consequently greatly deteriorated by exposure to the weather; that in consequence of being thus prevented from completing the said building be hits been obliged to incur considerab'e expense for houserent, and eventually to purchase another house for the residence of himself and family ; that for the same reason the property which your petitioner purchased twenty months ago has yielded him no return, and that if he were disposed to sell it he could not find a purchaser, the Commissioner's proceedings at Akaroa, having so unsettled niens' minds that no property derived from the Canterbury Association is now saleable.

19. That besides the oppressive and illegal acts detailed in the foregoing paragraphs, Mi. Campbell has encroached on the same plot of land in another form, by awarding a portion of it to one of the claimants under the NantoBordelaise Company (Eli Borriaud), and by causing pegs to be driven into the ground to rn.uk off such portion.

20. That your petitioner is aware that he would be without redress if the hind in question had really been sold or conceded to the said Eli Borriaud by the Nantoßordelaise Company, as such cession or sale would have excepted it from the power to sell entrusted to the Canterbury Association. But that it was not so sold, or ceded, the following circumstances will shew.

21. The plot of land purchased by your petitioner is a flat at the foot of a hill :* when Borriau 1 first squatted on the land he built his house on this flat: to this the French agent objected, and he was ordered to remove his

house: as he dtd not comply with this order, a party of men was landed from the French ship of war then in the harbour, who removed his house, and placed it on the hill, the brow of which has ever since been the boundary of his cultivation. Notwithstanding these circumstances, which are well known to all the old inhabitants, the Commissioner has awarded to Borriaud a portion of the flat from which he had been forcibly ejected by the French authorities, and which has been since sold and conveyed as Waste Land by the Canterbury Association.

22.^ There is another irregularity about Borriaud's case. The Ordinance No. 15 of session XI, tequires that the claims of persons residing in the colony should be submitted before the Ist day of January, 1852. Borriaud, though in the colony, did not submit his claim till long after the prescribed period, but nevertheless it was entertained.

23. That your petitioner is aware that the jurisdiction of your Honorable House does not yet extend to the management and control of the Waste Lands of the Crown: but that he nevertheless very respectfully ventures to urge that your House has jurisdiction in all that relates to the peace, order, and good government of the Province: that matters of the nature described in this petition do concern the peace, order, and good government, and particularly the peace of the Province ; for if Mr. Campbell and his agents be permitted to trespass on private properly, on any pretence whatever, such trespass manifestly tends to a breach of the peace. That your petitioner might even go the length of asserting that in this case the Crown Lands' Department has no jurisdiction at all, that Department being only constituted for the management and disposal of the Waste Lands of the Crown, and not for the purpose of interfering with lands already conveyed under the authority of an Act of Parliament. 24. For all these reasons your petitioner humbly prays that your Honorable House will afford him such redress as under the circumstances he may be deemed entitled to. And your petitioner shall ever pray, &c. (Signed) Thomas Adams. Akaroa, Oct. 3, 1853. ' I. Aharoa, September 15, 1852. The Commissioner of Ckown Lands, v. Thomas Ai>ams, Akaboa. Notice is hereby given to Thomas Adams, that the land upon which he is constructing a house is the property of the Crown. If therefore within ten days from this date he does not remove from the said Crown land the materials which he has placed upon it, he shall not afterwards be allowed to remove them, and proceedings will be taken against him in my Court under the Crown Lands Ordinance passed the 23rd day of August, 1846. (Signed) James Campbell. ii. , : . . Akaroa, 20th September, 1852. , Sin, —I do myself the honor to forward for the inl'oiination of His Excellency the Gover-nor-in-Chief, a notice which has been sent to me by Mr. Campbell, the Commissioner of down Lands, at this place. I must premise lhat the land referred to in the notice was purchased by me from Mr. D'Oyley for the sum of £45, it being part of a section sold and conveyed to the said Mr. D'Oyley by the Canterbury Association. I was for some time puzzled to know what Ordinance the Commissioner referred to in his notice, there being none of the date quoted. On a closer inspection of the Ordinance, however, it became evident to me that the Ordi-' nance No. 1, of Session X. must be the one meant, as the sixth clause thereof gives the powers claimed by Mr. Campbell. Now it is almost superfluous to point out to His Excellency that this Ordinance is not ia operation within the Canterbury Block. The Ordinance was originally enacted for the Province of New Ulster only. By Ordinance No. 10, Session XL it was extended to other parts of New Zealand, but the 13th clause of that Ordinance " saves and excepts" the Canterbury Block from its operation. The Commissioner is therefore acting under an Ordinance which has no force, and if I were an opulent man, my best course would perhaps be to let him blunder on, and after he had expelled me, to institute an action against him for the trespass.

But I am not an opulent man, I am not fond of litigation, and I cannot afford to be kept in a state of suspense. I have already suffered considerable pecuniary loss, and anxiety of mind by the acts of Mr. Campbell; some time ago he gave me verbal notice that the land would be taken from me, and though I was advised to treat the notice with contempt, I feared to risk any expense beyond what I had already incurred, and suspended building operations, which has put me to very great inconvenience. Did not the notice speak for itself, it might be difficult for his Excellency to believe that so many blunders could be crowded into so short a document. Besides, the misquotation of the date of the Ordinance and the assumption of powers under an Ordinance not in operation, Mr. Campbell furnishes me with "'an, argument against himself in asserting the lanxl referred to to be Crown land, for all Crown land within the Canterbury Block has been placed under the exclusive control of the Canterbury Association by Act of Parliament, and therefore he cannot possibly have any control over it. It was Crown land of course, and as such was legally sold and conveyed by the Canterbury Association in accordance with the undoubted powers conveyed to that body by the three Estates of the Realm. The case being so clear it may be asked why do I not point out to Mr. Campbell that he is acting illegally ? my answer is very simple. The general opinion entertained of his capacity by those whose education and position entitle them to form an opinion, is such, that I am warranted in the belief that, my argument would have no other effect than to bewilder and confuse him. I therefore prefer appealing to his Excellency against the acts of an officer who is perpetually giving evidence of his unfitness for the office which he has the honour to hold. Although I believe that argument would be lost on Lhe Commissioner, I still hope th'H he will stay further proceedings when he finds that an appeal has been made to the Government; I have therefore sent him a copy of this letter for his information. In the confident hope that his Excellency the Governor-in-Chief will protect me from further annoyance, I have the honor to subscribe myself, Sft, Your most obedient very humble servant, Thomas Adams. To the Hon. the Colonial Secretary. 111. Akaroa, September 27th, 1852. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Middle District, Middle Island, finding that Thomas Adams, of the town of Akaroa, has treated with contempt the notice given to him on the 15th day of the present month, viz., '* that the land upon which he is constructing a house is the property of the Crown," and as he has not removed from it in compliance with that notice the materials alluded to: Notice is hereby given to the said Thomas Adams, that if he does not deliver up to the Commissioner, or to any person duly authorised by him to take possession of the same, the said Crown land within ten days from this date, he shall be proceeded Against as a trespasser upon Crown land under the 6th, 7th, 39th, and ultimately the 40th clauses of the Crown Lands' Ordinance, Ses. X. No. 1, passed the 23rd day of August, 1849. (Signed) James Campbell. IV. Akaroa, 27th September, 1853. Sib,—7 In continuation of my letter of the 20th inst., ihave'the honor to forward for the information of His Excellency the Governor-in-chief a further notice which 1 have received from the Commissioner of Crown Lands. His Excellency will perceive that I was correct in the assertion that my argument would be thrown away upon him ; though it is equally clear that I was wrong in supposing that he would have the delicacy to refrain from persisting in his illegal course when he found that I had appealed to the Government against it. My last letter, a copy of which I sent to Mr. Campbell, so clearly points out that the Ordinance under which he was acting did not exlend to the Canterbury block, that it is difficult to conceive that any man of ordinary intelligence could P-Pvsjsj. J!U>eting under it_ A careless man 'might have omitted to see that the operation of the Ordinance was excluded from the territory placed under the control of the Canterbury Association: but gross ignorance

and incompetence could alone have failed to see the fact when clearly and distinctly pointed out. If any additional argument were necessary, I might refer to the Gazette notification of Mr. Campbell's appointment under the Ordinances in question, in which the Canterbury district is excluded in express terms. As it is impossible to see the lengths to which a man of Mr, Campbell's perverse or incompetent character may proceed, I humbly crave the immediate protection of the Government: for though it is quite evident by the 39th clause of the Ordinance which he quoted, that he must be the informant, and not the judge, I apprehend that he will not hesitate to act in both capacities, and thereby compel me to resort to legal proceedings, which I wish to avoid. Could I be certain that he would institute proceedings before the Magistrates, or before any other impartial and inexpensive Court, I should have no fear for the result;'but all his proceedings in the matter lead me to infer that he will not do so. In his first notice you will observe that he threatens to take proceedings against me in his Court. Reiving confidently on the protection of His Excellency the Governor-in-Chief, I remain, Sir, Your most obedient very humble, Servant, Thomas Adams. To the Honorable the Colonial Secretary. V. Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington. Oct. 11,1852. Sir, —I have received and laid before the Governor-in-Chief your letter of the 20th ult., forwarding a notice which had been served upon you under instructions from Colonel Campbell, the Crown Lands' Commissioner, warning you against building on certain land at Akaroa, the property of the Crown, hut which you assert belongs to you under purchase from Mr. D'Oyley who derives his title through the Canterbury Association. In reply I am desired by His Excellency to inform yon, that the subject having been brought under the consideration of the Executive Council, they are of opinion that the Government should not interfere with the discretion which the Commissioner appears to be exercising judiciously in as i'ar as they have any means of judging. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, (Signed) Alfked Domett. VI. Colonial Secretary's Office, Wellington, Nov. 1, 1853. Sir, —I am instructed by the Governor to acknowledge the receipt of your second letter dated 27th September last, reiterating your complaints against Colonel Campbell's decision in your case, and in reply I am to inform you that the subject having already been considered by the Government, and its decision communicated to you on the 11th ult., His Excellency regrets he cannot interfere as you wish. I have the honour to be, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, (Signed) Alfred Domett.