ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 4th April, 1853.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 801, 6 April 1853, Page 2

ORIGINAL CORRESPONDENCE. To the Editor of the New Zealand Spectator. Wellington, 4th April, 1853.

Sir, — Being in court oo the application of Mr. Dorset for an injunction against Mr. Com-

mil sioner Bell to restrain him from selling any of the waste lands of the Crown within the Company's settlement*, at lets than £1 per acre, I wat ranch surprised at hearing the Judge, Mr. Justice Stephen, state that any such lands purchased undtr the recent regulations for less than £1 per 'acre, would be resumed by the Crown, and that Crown Grants for such lands if given, would be invalid and set aside. Knowing, bowever, that if a private individual purchases land offered to him at a fixed price by another, and the transaction is conclnded and a conveyance executed, that the vendor is bound, and the conveyance cannot be set aside, I wished to ascertain why the Crown should not in like manner be bound, and I accordingly referred to Chitty, on Prerogative, to ascertain what the law on the subject was. And it sppears that if the intention be obvious, Royal grants ars to receive a fair and liberal interpretation, and that the construction and leaning shall be in favour 'of the subject or grantee, if the grant shew it was not made at the solicitation of the grantee. And that if the grant be upon a valuable consideration, it shall be construed strictly for the grantee for the bononr of the Ring. So if the grant be capable of two constructions, by the one of which it will be «»Kd, and by the other void,, it shall receive that interpretation which- will give it effect, x for that will br more for the benefit \of the subject and the honor of the King which ought to be more regarded than his profit. And further it appears that if a grant draw as a conclusion that the King has a certain estate, which is neither correct in law or in fact, this false conclusion not being any part of the consideration of the grant, and not having arisen from the misinformation or fault of the grantee, but being the surmise and mistake of he King shall not avoid the grant. Such being the law as stated by Chitty on Prerogative, I think it will tend much to quiet .the minds of those persons who wish to purchase lands under the recent regulations if the above wert known. With this view I have written the tbcsrig and not as a comment on the Judge's decision. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, VINDEX.