SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume II, Issue 116, 24 December 1873, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

Saturday, Decembeb 13. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.] (Condensed from Napier papers.) Continued from our last. alleged libel. Cross-examined by Mr. Lee: I remember simultaneous applications being, made by Mr. H. R. Russell and Mr. J. G. Kinross on the 7th of April last. When an application is made, a plan of the land is attached when it is so stated in the form. Mr. Sealy, on the Bth April, was somewhere near Waipawa I believe. Fresh plans were attached to the application. I can’t say whether Mr. Kinross consented. Mr. Russell had put in his application on the sth April. I granted a fresh application to Mr. Kinross because the Receiver of Land Revenue had in formed,the Commissioner that the deposit on Mr. Russell’s application had not been paid. Only part of the plan is attached to Mr. Russell’s application I know the application produced. It is one by Mr. Andrew Luff. I know the application produced. There is a foot note of mine to the application, certifying that the land has been sold ; it is correct. The land mentioned has not been put up to public auction since 1861. Applications are simultaneous on rural lands and lands on runs. When there are simultaneous applications, the runholder is generally one of the applicants. I have known it happen sometimes that the runholder is the first applicant, and sometimes not. Rhodes and Chapman were the first applicants on their own run, John Buchanan being the other. This is the only case I have any recollection of where the runholder was the first applicant. Re-examined by Mr. Lascelles : On the occasion of Mr. Heyland’s application, when Mr. Kinross was in the* Land Office, the latter’s business w’as in connection with the simultaneous applications of Messrs. Russell and Kinross. Mr. Wilson is Crown Prosecutor and Provincial Solicitor. His visits to the Land Office have generally been in connection with Crown Lands business. An application on my table could be read from outside the counter. There are general instructions prohibiting Government employees from giving information as to what takes place in their offices. I have never diverged from them; neither, to my knowledge, has the Commissioner of Crown Lands ever diverged from them. I am not aware of any irregular proceedings in connection with the Land Office.

H. B. Sealy, sworn, deposed: lam Commissioner of Crown Lands. I have, to the best of my ability, faithfully carried out the Land Regulations. lam not aware of any abuse or misuse of my powers. I have never thrown any obstacles in the way of applicants. I have never communicated with runholders contrary to my view of my duty. I have never voluntarily given any information to runholders affecting their runs which they could not have had otherwise. I remember Mr. Heyland making an application on Saturday, November 22. When Mr. Heyland came in I was with Mr. Kinross, sitting in the office. I instructed Mr. Parker to prepare the receive order, which, together with the application, was laid before me, and I signed it. It was then handed to Mr. Heyland. After a brief interval I went to the Telegraph Office, and I saw Mr. Wilson going in the direction of the Land Office. It was then a quarter to one o’clock, and when I got back I found Mr. Wilson making out an application for the same laud as that for which Mr. Heyland had made an application. I remarked, “ You’ve smoked that matter out pretty sharp.” I certainly did not connive at the transaction ; on the contrary, I was surprised when I saw what Mr. Wilson was about. The application was received, and the order for the Receiver of Land Revenue was duly made out. Mr. Parker, the clerk, never, to my knowledge, deviated from his duty. Ido not retain any right to repudiate applications received by Mr. Parker. With regard to time, 1 8° by my watch, which I set almost daily by the Telegraph clock. On Saturday, sth April, Mr. Russell went to the Land Office, accompanied by Mr. Brandon. I was in my private office, and the former called me out, and handed me an application. This was about 5 or 7 minutes before 2 o’clock, which was the closing hour at that time. I gave him the receive order about sor 6 minutes after 2 o’clock. This wonld make him too late to pay the money that day. On the ■ *

following morning (Sunday), I received a note from Mr. Kinross, asking me what portion of the Motuotaria block was included in Mr. Russell’s application. I gave him the desired information by a pencilled memorandum on his own note. I went to Waipawa on Monday, and on my return heard that, there was some complaint regarding some plans being removed from an application and others substituted. The Superintendent had made an investigation into the circumstances. The draughtsman is obliged to take the plans out of the Land Office. I recollect going to inspect Rhodes and Chapman’s run on the 24th April. My object was to see which was 10s land, and which was ss. I saw Mr. F. J. Tiffen, and he informed me that Mr. Buchanan had appointed him agent, and he wished to purchase all land on Rhodes and Chapman’s application, which I might put by as 10s land. I told him I could not recognise his right to any information regarding Chapman’s application. He replied that he was perfectly entitled to claim the right of purchase. I told him to come to the office and I would give him the result of the inspection. On the 25th April, an application was made by Rhodes and Chapman. I remember Messrs. Naim making an application for 25,460 acres of land at Pourerere. The land was surveyed by contract. When it came on for sale, I suggested that the blocks were laid out in very unsuitable shapes. I objected to Mr. Weber, but that gentleman thought the laying out was right enough. I then referred the matter to Mr. Ormond, who ordered an alteration. The alterations made the survey as near what was required by the Land Regulations as the natural features of the country would permit. As it was before, I am not prepared to say that the survey was illegal, but certainly the regulations were strained to their utmost limit.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cornford : I do not remember whether I signed the pencilled memorandum to Mr. Kinross. The memorandum did convey information to Mr. Kinross ; and I consider what I did was quite right. Had Mr. Kinross come to the Land Office on Saturday, I could not have refused him the information which I gave him on Sunday. Mr. Russell’s application was completed on Saturday within office hours, although the receive order was not granted till Monday. His Honor remarked that the evidence involved a question of propriety of conduct on part of the Commissioner.

Mr. Cornford : The very gist of the action your Honor is whether the business of the Crown Lands Office was properly or improperly conducted. • Examination continued: An application is good as a record, but not as an application for land until the money is paid. I remember Mr. Buchanan, on the 18th February, asking to see an application for 4,000 acres by Rhodes and Chapman. That application had no tracing. I do not remember whether, in Mr. Buchanan s presence, I instructed Mr. Jarman to annex a plan to that application in order to validate it. I have no control over Mr. Jarman. When I saw Mr. F. J. Tiffen, in connection with Rhodes and Chapman’s application, I swear positively I did not tell him that Monday would be time enough to make his application. I told him that I would not be at the Land Office till Monday. I refused to tell him about Rhodes and Chapman s application. In regard to Nairn’s land, there was some talk of unfairness of the survey. Ido not think I would be justified in selling land not laid out according to law. The land on Mr. Nairn’s application was gazetted to be sold, but when I found that it had not been properly laid out, I withdrew the notice until an alteration had been made. I was not officially informed that the money for Rhodes and Aynsley’s application was paid before Mr. Wilson got the receive order. I do not consider there is any impropriety in allowing people inside the counter if they have business to transact which could not conveniently be transacted outside of the counter. I would allow you if you had business of such a nature. It is not the practice of the office to allow anyone to take documents away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lee : If an application is taken away or destroyed, the application book is the only record of such fact. An application and receive order is the only contract between the Government and the purchaser. Back applications may be taken away from the office. I gave Mr. Kinross a receive order on the sth April, and Mr. Russell got one on the same day, after Mr. Kinross received his. I knew when I gave Mr. Russell his that it would be too late to present it that day. He kept bothering me whilst making out the orders, and consequently delayed me. I did not know as a matter of fact that Mr. Tylee had left his office. I do not remember Mr. Brandon going to my office, and telling me that Mr. Tylee would not wait. Since sending Mr. Kinross the pencilled memorandum on Sunday 6th April, no reflection has crossed my mind that it was only on account of the information so derived that he put in an application the next day. Had I refused to give him the information he asked, he would have thought I was concealing something, and he would have been more only more eager to come to the office at 10 o’clock on Monday morning. Mr. Kinross gave me as a reason for wishing for the information on Sunday, that his overseer, Mr. Alfred Price, was going up country that day, and he wanted to send word to Mr. Tanner. Before I came into office as Commissioner of Crown Lands, the practice was that runholders could apply and have their runs certified as 5s land after the 10s land had been picked out. I upset the practice by a formal decision. Mr. Buchanan, on the 18th April, made a formal protest, and I submitted the point to the Government for instructions. When Mr. Ormond returned from Wellington, he told me that the matter had been left entirely in my hands. I then lost no time in gazetting that the practice complained of had been put a stop to. On the Ist September, 1862, Mr. H. S. Tiffen, being then Crown Lands Commissioner, Rhodes and Chapman had applied to that gentleman to certify to their run as 5s land. He refused until all the 10s land had been taken out, when be promised to do so. They thought it would be a breach of faith if such was not done, and I thought so too. I therefore went up and picked out 800 acres of their run as 10s land. The remainder was sold to Rhodes and Chapman on the 25th April. When any disputes arise, I refer to the Government,' and they always refer back to me. My certificate prevents the public from buying. Mr. Chapman had more definite information from me than Mr. Tiffen, and I consider it was right that he should. Mr. Tiffen could have bought on his own judgment. Mr. Wilson announced that the case for the prosecution had dosed. To he continued.