Untitled

Lyttelton Times, Volume VII, Issue 486, 1 July 1857, Page 5

Mr. Barker said that it was with extreme regret that he had heard the honourabie gentleman (Mr. Blakieton) propose an amendment, the effect of which would be to prevent this Council sifting this matter to the bottom. He called the attention of the House to the fact that the Committee had noticed only the allegations, and had not reported upon the main portion of the petition, viz., whether or no Mr. W. G. Brit tan had used his position at the head of the Land Office for his personal ends and to the detriment of Captain Harvey. He stated that he thought it the duty of this Council to proceed with the investigation, because, as it appeared to him, the reply or Mr. Brittan contained statements at variance with notorious fact, and contrary to the evidence of Mr. Brittan's own witnesses ; it was therefore right to give Mr. Brittan the opportunity of reconciling these discrepancies. He would wish the Council to notice that this statement was vouched for on oath, and that, after the material parts of it had b-^en contradicted by the evidence produced before the select committee, Mr. Brittan had reasserted it in the newspaper. Mr. Brittan states in his reply that " Captain Harvey left the colony some time after this occurrence" (the dispute with Mr. Burke for trespass) " nothing being done or arranged by him for the rent of the coming year " (the year commenced on September 22, and Captain Harvey left, on October 9 ) "A few days after1 the rent became due I saw Mr. Cridland in the Land Office, and, knowing him to be Captain Harvey s agent, I told him the rent was due and ought to be paid ; he only said 'Very well,' and from that time nothing was said or done by.any agent of Captain Harvey's, in the way of tendering the rent due. I then decided on terminating the agreement, on the legal gs ouxid or non-payment of rent, and on she moral ground of the violation of the spirit of the agreement. I paid to the Accountant in the Land Office the rent due for the coming year, informing him that I had ended the agreement with Capt. Harvey, and that,in renewing the license the pre-emptive righ's belonging to Captain Harvey were not to be recited as paid for, Captain Harvey and his agents having failed to pag for their renewal, or for the share of the run let to him.'" Now it wi!l be observed that this statement is a consecutive one, and that we are I to believe that the events took place in the order of the narrative; whereas the evidence ' will show the reverse to have beeu the fact. The rent of the large run became due on the 22hd September, and wa's paid by Mr. Brittan to the Accountant on the 30th of Sept.; whereas the conversation with Mr. Cridland must have taken place on Oct. 4th,. the day on which Capt.^Harvey left Christchurch and on which he appointed Mr. Gresson his agent (erroneously dated in the deed the sth). If this date be correct, then Mr. Brittan demanded of Mr. Cridland the rent due on an agreement which he had terminated by his own showing four days previously. Mr. Fooks's evidence also serves to fix th.^ dnte of this conversation with Mr. Cridland, as occurring subsequent to the omission of Capt. Harvey's pre-emptive rights from the renewed license. Mr. Fooks, when asked before the select committee by Mr. Cridland. *• if yon had been able to inform me what the amount or Capt. Harvey's contribu.ion was and I had paid it, should you not have iuforn c I me that Mr. Brittan had not paid for the preemptive rights?. He did not simply answer

" / could not have told you so for Mr. Brittan had not then given me directions to omit them from his license" —whuh. would have been the obvious answer; but he says "lean not say what I should have done, but as I have never allowed. &c, &c Besides which, had Mr. Cridland's demand to know what he had to pay (which Mr. Fooks and Mr. 'Cridland both say followed immediately upon Mr. Brittan's demand for rent), taken place only a day or two previous to Mr. Brittan's paying his rent on Sept. 30, would not Mr. Fooks, hearing Mr. Brittan assign as his reason for omitting the pre-emptive rights.-that be had terminated the agreement with Capt. Harvey because that gentleman and his agents had failed to pay the rent, would not Mr. Fooks have said, * You can hardly do that for it ivas only a feio days since that Mr. Cridland came to me by your direction enquiring what amount teas to be paid, and ivould have paid it at that time, only that I was obliged to put him off, being busy, and not knoivmg what sum to demand.' I think, therefore, that we are justified in concluding that Mr. Cridland has assigned the right date to this conversation; but, if so, what can we say of the gentleman who, after having silently cancelled an existing agreement, still demands the rent that would have - been due upon it for the on coming year! Mr. Brittan further says, " at this time, I gave Mr. Gresson, one of Captain Harvey's agents, distinctly to understand that the agreement was at an end." At this time, we must remember, was Sept. 30th. Mr. Gresson did not become Capt. Harvey's agent till Oct. 4th, and distinctly states and proves in his evidence and letter published in the " Lyttelton Times," that he had no conversation whatever with Mr. Brittan on the subject till the end of October or the beginning of November, and that then Mr. Brittan only told him that the agreement did not give Captain Harvey the power to sell or sub-let. Mr. Gresson having advertised the run-on October 16th, and leased it to Mr. Johnston, on October 24th, he thenreferred Mr. Gresson to Mr. Burke for the particulars of the agreement, and it was not. till after the month's grace customarily allowed to defaulting runholders by the Land Office had elapsed, that Mr. Brittan, for the first time, intimated his intention to terminate the agreement with Capt. Harvey. This is a very different thing to telling Mr. Gresson at this lime, whether by that is to be^jtinderstood immediately before or after the'renewal of Mr. Brittan's license. Mr. Brittan says he was morally justified in the c mrse he took, Captain" Harvey having violated the spirit of the agreement betwixt them. Let us see what were its terms according to Mr. Brittan's own statement. He was to give £\Q[; to pay the rent cf his share of the run as it became due ; " and he was, living as he did on the spot, to act as a 'protection to that boundary of the run to prevent the sheep crossing over <t narrow pass in the gully, by which they v:ould be liable to go astray and be lost on the Lyttelton Hills. It was this last condition which I understood to be the important one, no other advantage of any consequence being gained by the arrangement; and it was with this understanding I gave my consent, to the agreement." Mr. Burkes statement agrees with this, pointing out the " pass " in question to be a bridge erected by Captain Harvey over the stream which runs down through the valley. I own, sir, that when I read this, I was astonished to find that no obligation to fence in his rural land was included in the agreement, as Mr. Brittan is said to have stated such to have been the case iv his examination before the Waste Lands Board. Now, ""sir, this engagement Mr. Brittan states Captain Harvey to have violated in the following manner :—Captain Harvey complained to Mr. Burke that his sheep trespassed on Captain Harvey's corn-field, and he threatened to prosecute Mr. Burke if he did not prevent his sheep from doinoso. Mr. Burke, in answer (see bis evidence), does not complain to Captain Harvey that this constituted a breach of their agreement, but takes the trouble to convince Captain Harvey that his fence was not a legal one. Whereupon, Captain Harvey " took no proceedings," as Mr. Burke says. Now was this such a breach of the agreement as would warrant Mr, Brittan putting a sudden stop to Captain Harvey's occupancy,^and virtually destroying his pre-emptive-rights ? 1 think not, and for this good reason. The land upon which the sheep trespassed did not belong to Captain Harvey, till six months after the 'pasturage agreement had been entered into ; its fencing therefore could not have been stipulated for in the agreement; besides which, it is situated half a mile on Mr. Burkes side of the pass in.the gully, which alone"^n.^Zrihi'TlaT- \ \ey undertook toguard,accordiug to Messrs. Brittan and Burkes statements.

I I now come to the manner in which Captain Harvey's pre-emptive rights were destroyed, and I will shew by Mr. Brittan's own statement how great has been the injury inflicted. He states that the pre-emptive rights belonged to Captain Harvey, and had never been transferred to Mr. Brittan, while his own conduct and assertions prove that he did not consider himself bound to act as Captain Harvey's agent in the matter. On the other hand, he states distinctly that by the practice of the Land Office he had been permitted to place these pre-emptive rights on the large run, that they were recited in the license and paid for in the payment for the whole run. This custom had continued to be acted on for three years. Therefore, sir, it follows of course, that Captain Harve} r had, with the permu-sion of the Land Office, a( quired a separate and individual interest in the integrity of Mr. Brittan's license, of which the Land Office had no right to deprive him without his knowledge. But, sir, this deprivation was not effected by the Land Office, but by the unauthorised deed of two of the officers of the Waste Lands Board. What are the facts of the case? Mr. Brittan himself gave the directions to Mr. Fooks to alter the recital in his license, and in consequence the boundaries of his run; and this was done privately on the 30th of Sept., according to the entry in the cash book ; contrary to the distinct directions of the Waste Lands Regulations, which provide that all matters relating to pasturage and land shall be transacted before the Waste Lands Board at its sitting. There is, it is true, a bye law established by the Board enabling the Treasurer to receive money on days when the board is not sitting, but this by-law does not authorise the Treasurer or Accountant to make alter- ; ations in the license. Besides which, the 30th of Sept. was a board day, and Mr. Brittan's name occurs neither on the notice book nor upon the minutes of the board for that day. But, although Mr. Brittan's name does not appear, Mr. Cridland's does, bcth on Sept. 30th and Nov. 6th, .affording a strange commentary to an assertion by Mr. Fooks to Mr. Cridland, as given in the evidence of the former—"l anrquite certain that from the time that you asked me what was due until the period of your coming into the office with Mr. Gresson (Dec. 11), / had no opportunity of speaking to you on the subiect." I think therefore, sir, that I have proved : Ist. That Capt. Harvey did not break his agreement. 2nd. That, admitting Mr. Brittan's account of the transaction to be correct, ard that the pre-emptive rights had not been transferred but still belonged to Capt. Harvey, that gentleman had acquired an interest in.. Mr. Brittan's license, of which he could not be .-justly deprived without due notice. 3id. That no such notice was given by Mr. Brittan, either as Land Commissioner or Capt. Harvey's agent. 4th. That the rights were extinguished illegally by Mr. Brittan upon a day when there was a sitting of the Waste Lands Board, at which also Mr. Cridland was present. sth. That, after the omission of the preemptive rights from the license, effectually extinguishing Capt. Harvey's rights, his agents were by Messrs. Brittan and Fooks's representations prevented discovering the lapse of the pre-emptive rights, until it was too late to apply for their renewal. I think, sir, these considerations afford sufficient reason why the Council should enquire thoughtfully into this matter, and I shall therefore vote against the amendment.