OTEKAIKE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2814, 19 February 1908, Page 23

OTEKAIKE.

I THE CASE OF M'KELLAR AND MITCHELL. PPEfIAL MEETING OF THE LAND BOARD. The 6peei.il meeting of che Otago Land Boaid, hold on the 12th inst.. to consider tlie ea<-es of Messrs M'Kellar and Mitchell in cormeetion with the Otekaike Estate, was attended by Messrs D. Barron (Commissioner of Crown Lands, chairman), W. Dall«i<;. John Tough, G. Livingstone, and J. M. M'Kenzie. Mr Hosking, K.C., appeared for Messrs M'Kellar and Mitchell, and Mr John Cook watched the proceedings on behalf of Mo«rs Robert Campbell and Sons. Mr Hosking said that he was unaware that, after the Minister had approved the recommendation of the board, the board had power to rehear the case, though it might ja&ke an inquiry when a report by . the commissioner to the board showed that

T the applicant ha-d made false represent*-- , tions. Hie clients would afford the fulleat ■ information, but he hoped the board woul<{ understand that they retained all theit rights. With respect to the legality of the grant to the lessees, he submitted that proceedings to test the matter could not be taken in the manner that was being pursued. The board could not test th« legality by calling upon the applicants Ut give evidence, on the presumption thai their previous statements were inaccurate. The only way to test the legality of th* grant was by reference to the Suprema Court : let the court say whether the construction that had been placed on the law was accurate. The Minister had thought the original view of the board to be correct. A certain interpretation had been, given b>, the Solicitor-general, and with every re^ spect to the Solicitor-general, they could hardly suffer their rights to ->be taken away from them by submission to that opinion. They therefore reserved all the rights they possessed. It seemed that th© proceedings were not being taken under section 99, and they respectfully lodged their objection to such procedure. Should the board decide against them, and their decision be adhered to, that would probably not ba the last heard of it. In eifect, they appeared under protest, but would at the same time give the board the most ample information. Mr Cook explained that he was present by the courtesy of the board. His clients had nothing particular to say and nothing to hide. The Chairman said hp believed the board to be distinctly with'n its rights in hearing these castf*. Mr Hosking was quite willing that his clients should leply to any question put. William W. Mitchell, being duly 6worn, said ha was prepared to substantiate the statements made by him tor thr board on the sth December last. He had been in the employ of Messrs Robert Campbell and Sons since August 1, 1899, and had been constantly in Ihe employment of that company for a period of five years. He had been deprived of that employment by the sale of Otekaike Estate to the Government. Ho had been informed that Messrs Campbell and Sons had decided to sell "The Plains" Station, of which he was manager, in the event of Otekaike being told. He was last employed hv Robert Campbell an< . . Sons in July, 1907, and had received thr©, months' wages after that. The companj had written to him offering a reference, offering to release him at once so as notto stand in his way. The letter was produced and read. The Chairman : Was there any broken period of service during that' time?— No. Were you paid an unbroken salary from 1899 till you left?— Yos. Mr Hosking: Otekaike was sold in April, 1907?— Yes. •And when the place was sold that ended your employment?— Exactly. Hugh C. W. M/Kellar, of Otekajke. station manager, on" oath said he entered, the service of Mewirs Campbell and Sons as a paid shepherd in May, 1900. Was a paid servant of the company in April, 1902. and had remained continuously till April 29, 1907. There had been no break in h-'s service. He had been deprived of his employment by the "ale of' Otekaike. The Chairman: Did Mr Campbell inform you that your services would not be requirpd owing to saJe of Otekaike? Witness said he could not swear a> fa whether Mr Campbell had said so in so many words, but such was the clear understanding. The Chairman: You cannot say for certain, then? — Xo. Continuing, Witness said he went to Station Peak in October, 1901, and re- . mained there as shepherd till August. 1902. After that he was employed by the company as clerk at Station Peak till 1905, when he went to Otekaike, though for a time he was still on the books as clerk at Station Peak. Thence he went as manager for Buscot and Station Peak till May, 1906. His duties had again been changed back in August, 1905, when he had been employed on general duties and as tra.velling manager for Station Peak. Otekaike was his home. His service was unbroken from 1900 to 1907. He had had an occasional holiday, for which he had been paid, and on one occasion he might have been away at Benmora for about a fortnight. He was still in the service of the company. The Chairman : Then you have not been

deprned cf biller afler all' Witnebe : Yes. I have : but they could hardly hunt me away before the station was delivered. Witness had been round the North leland on one occasion to look for land, on the understanding that h© should return to his duties at once if work became pressing. To Mr Ho.-king: This was after the eetate liad been bought by the Government. He looked for land because he knew his billet had gone with the sale of Otekaike. but he had gone with the distinct understanding that he was to return to see the company over the sale. 'He had been born at Otekaike, and his /ather had been Marion manager there. jFrom 1900 to the present time he had been f;aining a. practical knowledge of sheep- ' arming. He knew the country thoroughly, j '«nd had no hesitation in saying that lie j ,was perfectly competent to manage the ; land that might be leased to him. The j f duties of a cleik on a station consisted j of book-keeping and doing the work of a 'deputy manager. As clerk he took part in the management of the station. At first he vi as unaware that he could make any special application for this land, but was informed by a letter from the Land 'Board that he was entitled to do fo. This information came in the shape of a notice irom the board. i Robert Ormus Campbell, of Otekaike, ( .managing director of the company, being >worn, said he had employed Mr Mitchell on August 1, 1899, and Mitchell had been j continually in the employ of the company , (.ill the Otekaike Estate had been resumed , foj the Government. There had been no j I (broken period of service, and no manager ( V.was supposed to go away for more than | ' three da«s without leave, and Mr Mitchell , liad not applied for such leave. j The Chairman asked what sale it was , that led to Mr Mitchell being out of employment. Witness, after consideration, complained , that he wa« being- a=ked to swear on a contingency, and said that one place was sold because another one \\a= «old. ami tV~ *ire that ■»- ' '<jic 10-t L»

Surely the board was composed of practical men. who must be aware that such a 'thing was "a, pretty tall order." I The Chairman : I "may tell you that we have Mr Mitchell's evidence to that effect. 1 Mr Ilosking suggeeted that w»nes» be asked to state the exact facte of the caef. j The Chairman : I want a substantiation of Mr Mitchell's statement by a tlnect j answer to my question. Mr Cook : Mr Campbell can only give j his opinion on eueh a point. The Chairman: I think Mr Campbell ie perfectly able to look after himself. j Mr Cook said he did not think the ' question was fairly put. The Chairman : I do not want inference". What bearing had the sale of Otekaike 'on Mr Mitchell'* employment' j Witness replied that Otekaike was the , head station, and the company had de cided to sell its freehold,*. When it was S seen that the Government meant buying I Otekaike he received instructions to sell. The date of the sale was July 8. 'but the place was actually sold from June 30 I The Chairman: Had the Plains Station not been sold, would the services of MiMitchell ha\e been retained by the company ? Witness: Oh. yes. Mr Mitchell recen ed a substantial bonus and a letter of thanks , from the directors. I was in England at the t time, and I remember it was a resolution pas=ed by <he director.*, in the ovent of Otekaike being sold, to sell the other freeI holds. I could not swear whether or not ' this resolution was made the subject of a minute, but I was present as a director I with the other directors in London when this decision was arrived at. j To Mr Cook : He had not approached J the board, who, however, applied to him in a letter dated November 18 aekinff what parties were eligible to take up land at Otekaike. The company had no interest in putting its employees on the property. Their engagements were all subject to the usual notice?, which would be given in due coun^e. To Mi Ho.-kina : There had been two or **■—" -<Urs for the '• Plains. ' An offer

of £14.200 had been made in December or November, which had been refused. Otekaike had not then bee:i soid. The company had afterwards sold the '• Plains" for £13,500. ;* To the Chairman: Mr M-Kellar first came on the company's books at Benmore Station about June 1, 1900. He was continuously employed by witneso till the sale of Otekaike. He «va« station servant under the jurisdiction of the manager, and was continuously paid. He could not have been away for more than a fortnight. He-had lost his employment through the sale of Otekaike, and he (witness) had informed him to that effect— told him that he would have to go because the place was sold.

Continuing, Witness said Mr M'Kellar was originally brought from Station Peak to Otekaike in order that he might get to understand the work, so that he could take witness's place should witness go Home for a holiday. It was on those terms that he had induced M'Kellar to rome back to Otekaike.

The Chairman : What do you mean by the term " induced him to come back " ?

Witne«s replied that he had not expressed his meaning properly. What he wished to convey was, '' I prevailed on him to .stay."'

James Roberts, public officer, produced the ledgers showing both Mitchell and M'Kellar to have received pay for unbroken service during the terms specified.

Mr Hoskin<* asked if the question of legality would be made a subject of th« report, and on being informed that it would not, he again stated that he did not awent to the propriety of the proceeding*. Mr Cook said that, # as the company's stock would be sold in March, an idea as to when the matter was likely to be adjusted would greatly convenience the parties concerned.

The Chairman replied that a letter would be sent to Mr Cook when the board forwarded its report to the Minister. Tb* board tt^e w£»\jt into Aw«umtte«.