SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, 30th March, 1853. Dorset v. Bell.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 800, 2 April 1853, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, 30th March, 1853. Dorset v. Bell.

Dr. Evans applied on the part of the plaintiff for ah injunction against the defendant, Francis Dillon Bell, Esq., Commissioner of Crown Lands, to restrain him from receiving applications, and from selling land under the recent proclamation and regulations of His Excellency Sir George' Grey, at the reduced prices mentioned in the regulations. The learned Counsel stated in detail the scheme of the New Zealand Company with regard to emigration and sales of land, the different regulations issued hythem,and the surrender by them into the hands of Government of their charters and lands whereby- the liabilities and unfulfilled contracts of the Company devolved upon the Government. That one of such contracts :> was that' land should not be sold in the Company's settlements at less than £1 per acre, and that such land purchasers were A entitled to the benefit of certain Pasturage Regulations over the waste lands of the Company. He stated that the plaintiff was the holder of three land orders, one selected, one unselected, and one Compensation Scrip. That the plaintiff claimed in respect of such unselected land order a right of selection over the land which the Government might sell under the recent regulations, and the effect of the recent regulations would be to reduce the value of the land selected by him, which he considered was such an injury as entitled him to redress by applying for the injunction. Counsel laid great stress upon the letters of Sir John Pakington to his Excellency Sir George Grey, published in the recent Gazettes, as clearly showing that her Majesty's Government had not delegated any authority to Sir George Grey to reduce the price of land. His Honor asked if notice had been given to the defendant, and if the application was opposed. Mr. Sewell said that notice had been given, and his -Honor then stated that as advised, he considered the plaintiff entitled to the injunction, but the difficulty, was in what form it should be granted. It was his opinion there was no power on the part of the Government to sell land for less than 80s. an acre, and though it might be presumption on his part to say he did not concur in the opinion given by the Attorney and Solicitor-General respecting the contracts existing between the Company and their land purchasers ; that opinion was adopted by her Majesty and sanctioned by Parliament, and he must take the law as he found it. Jn ; his opinion it would be beneficial to sell 1 the waste lands at ss.'afc acre, but he had no right to deprive another of his rights. This question could only be settled by means of the Legislature, and it seemed very improbable therefore, that these powers would be delegated to the Gorernor. His Honor said the question was, Has any power been delegated to the Governor to alter .the price of land. He did not think there* had been, or that it had been contemplated. His Honor observed this opinion was given on an exparte statement, and he should exercise the right of changing his opinion if sufficient grounds were shewn on the other side. He might also state for the information of the public that writs of sdre facias might be issued against persons purchasing land under these regulations, though he should be very loth to decide this question without previously referring to the Chief Justice. We understand an application was made yesterday on the part of the defendant to set aside the order obtained by the plaintiff as above, and that leave has been obtained to move that the order be set aside, for irregularity on certain grounds, which motion will be heard on Tuesday next.