ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 688, 6 March 1852, Page 3

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington. March 4, 1852. Sir, —That the settlers may be aware of the difference between the Crown Grants offered to them pursuant to the recent Act of Parliament relating to lands in New Zealand and the Crown Grants which they were led to expect under the Land Claims Oidinance, in itself no niore than a just fulfilment of the Company’s engagements with them, I trouble you with a few remarks. Under the Land Claims Ordinance the estate created by a Crown Grant would have been geod against all the world excepting the Crown, and would only be disputed by the Crown on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation by the Grantee. Such a grant requires no witness, proves itself in Court, conveys all it purports to convey, and until set aside by the Crown, is evidence of an indefeasible title. lhe New Zealand Company, in August 1839, ''hen they had nor a shadow of claim to the land now forming the settlement of Port Nichotson, !fisue( i land orders, each of which dec ared that the person whose name it bore han one section of land consisting of one town acre and one hundred country acres in the first and P lln c'Pal settlement. As originally printed the • . P a <d for” followed the word "has," n (mating more accurately the nature of the transaction represented by the land order On ure deliberation, and doubtless to avoid any Hom lOn SS to , l^e fifty chargeable on such a wnrd m u nt • U j n r de ?‘ l the British Stam P Act, the S f I’ al fi were struck out. As altered, lng , to Ble ,°t fiinary understanding of the dertnV; Jand order amounted to an unby. *^ e Company to deliver to the lie i.ia"? ed 1 ,e . and mentioned in it when ledamo . n' e fleeted it, and a tacit acknowhad bo* 1 1 ’• th® consideration for the land pedient a„ P T d t 0 the C °mP*ny. It was an cswhich mJ I** 1 ** ° R ? 1 ! 8 to Bankers’ letters ot advice money Use “ in man y cases as receipts for stiU^ppnt^P ?^ so devised a form of transfer, st amp duties ln Thi W the ob J' ect . of e '’ adin « ment hx> ‘ . 8 was a simple acknowledge ferred hto e , or, R ln . a l owner that he had transchaser ’ n tbe Itmd order to the purtlie Cn’r-n-.. 3 r .^ < l, uest that the conveyance by order\h« 0 .7J < ? l “ e ' a “d referred to by the land Production c b, e . made to the parchaser. Off -onmanx’ °£ th,s d°cunient duly signed at the wTcallL 8 0^ Ce > in London, a printed certifirered tn a ! an 4 transfer certificate was deliholder. This purported to be an ’ad repp; dg r’ ent tbat,be Company, as trustees, »emoS dnoti . ce ? f “transfer; and, by a ’cate hm Um P r . l,lted nt the back of the certihat no fL n ? t SI ? M ® d » ‘he Company promised lognu J ran . B ! e r of the land order would be re’roductinJ Va c C \ aa not accompanied by the 'remise tn i. v 1 j-certificate. Supposing the 'UrchasnJ c , b| ffi |n g» the effect was that the ertifica/ order holding the transfer onBidp»» 1 - C ° u d Bot he affected by the want of er dn«. allon a PP a renton the face of the transcument, The Company was satisfied

there had been a transfer bona fide, and would recognize only the purchaser's right. And this mode of transfer by owners resident in England has continued in use up to the present time. In . the colony transfers of land have, from the time of the Conveyancing Ordinance coining into operation, been very generally effected by deeds prepared according to the Ordinance. It has been well known to the profession that a transfer, which bears no acknowledgment of a good or valuable consideration on the face of it, is open to question unless separate evidence of the payment or existence of a consideration is preserved along with it. But all the. Ordinances pcssed for the settlement of land claims in New Zealand have recognized and provided for the fact, that in the early stage of the colony transfers were effected by veiv im perfect and informal documents, and Commissioners have been authorised to dispense with strict legal evidence, and to decide according to good faith and conscience the questions arising out of claims to land submitted to their decision. Purchasers have bought in the belief that when Crown Grants were issued all these questions would be so decided and once for all set at rest. They bought a title to be perfected by a Grant, and expecting that if, upon application, any further evidence than they possessed should be required, it would without much difficulty be obtained. We have now to ascertain how the Grant proposed to be given under the recent Act of Parliament would operate. By the Act of Parliament the Grant is not to operate as a Grant. It is merely a conveyance of the legal interest in the land to the person who appears entitled to it, in trust for whoever may be entitled to it. All liens which have at any time existed on the land, but of which the purchaser has had no notice, the lien for unpaid purchase money among the rest, all questions as to validity of transfers which have taken place in times past, all questions with regard to the quality of the interest created by the 'and order before and after selection of the land, as, for example, whether descendible to the heir or to the executor when not disposed of by will; in short, all that has hitherto contributed to throw doubt upon titles to land in this settlement will not be determined, but fixed and rendered permanen’lj open awaiting the time when increased value shall render the property included in any’ Grant a prize wo;th contending-for. Suppose, for example, the dotibtful debts returned by the Directors as part of the assets of the Company should prove to represent the purchase monies of land in this settlement, of which the debtors were allowed to take possession, and of which they held all the evidences of title. The acceptance by any sub purchasers from them of the Grant which the Act of Parliament provides will, or at all events may, have the effect of confirming the Company’s lien for the unpaid purchase money, “ any rule eflaw or equity to the contrary prevailing in the colony- of New Zealand or elsewhere" notwithstanding. A Grant so qualified is not a fulfilment of the Company’s contract. Wherever it shall appear to the Commissioner that there are existing liens and interests in the laud to be gianted which require to be protected, special arrangements may be made for the custody of the Grant and fulfilment of the Grantee’s obligations. But to throw a doubt over every title issued, to compel Grantees to seek for evidence which Government, Company and purchasers have hitherto agreed to dispense with, would be to keep the word ot promise to the ear and break it to the hope, reducing the security for which the settlers have so long and with wonderful patience waited to “ the name and not to the thing.” It behoves all who feel interested in the subject to be stirring, and not let the opportunitypass without strongly urging their claims. I am. Sir, Your obedient Servant, An interested Party.