Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1883.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1362, 29 September 1883, Page 2

Poverty Bay Standard. PUBLISHED EVERY TUESDAY, THURSDAY AND SATURDAY MORNINGS. GISBORNE: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1883.

It becomes our duty to contra diet ° and correct another false and misleading article which appeared in “ Paul Pry’ B Driveller aud Mrs Jones’s Twaddler/’ of Wednesday evening, headed “ Messrs Common, Shelton, and Co.’s, claim to the Foreshore.” After stating that “there are three transactions on the Register relating to the piece of land now held by Common, Shelton, & Co,” they paradoxically, further on, assert that “ this last I (the third) deed, however, does not in ' any way refer to the Foreshore piece of land now under discussion.” Now we will, in the first place, show the actual transactions which took place, and then the clearly shown intent and purpose of these transactions. 'The first document is dated April 14, 1870, and is a conveyance from Captain Read t ) the Quekn of the parcel of land known as the Waiongaruawai Block, comprising la 3r 19p, bounded ontheN.E. and E. by the Taruheru River, and extending towards the 8. and W. 600 and 480 links. I he next document, though dated Feb. 25,1871, is made retrospective, and has effect from April 14, 1870, and is a reconveyance of not alone the same parcel of land, but also an added additional portion comprising in all 2a Ir 14p, with a provisional clause inserted that the Government reserved the right of resuming possession at will of five per cent, of the whole area for the purpose of laying off roads, &c,, through the same. The third document, which is dated Feb 18, 1873, is also m ule retrospective inasmuch as it has effect from Feb. 7, 1870 (upwards of thetwo months priortotheexecutionof first deed), and is another conveyance from the Queen to Read of the same block, minus the Foreshore, and called in this deed, allotment 373 as shown on plan of township. Now the intent and purpose of these conveyances and re-conveyances is clearly apparent to the meanest capacity. It will be seen that in the first place Captain Read evidently being desirous of obtaining a certificate of title to the block above mentioned, and knowitigfull well that the Government reserved to themselves, in every case, the Foreshore of all harbours, rivers and creeks, conveyed the block to the Queen, evidently for the purpose of permitting Government to deduct that portion which they claimed by virtue of right. It will be seen by reference to deed No. 1 that Read conveyed la 3r 19p to the Queen, aud received in return by the re-conveyance 2a Ir 14p, which, though dated Feb 25.1871, tookeffect from the date of the previous deed, dated April 14, 1870. In this second deed it will be seen that the Government have given Captain Read an equivalent for the land which it evidently intends to ultimately cut off as a Foreshore from the block when the township was finally laid out and defined—the reserving clause re the five per cent, plainly demonstrating this fact. The last deed, which our obscure and preverting comtemporary states “ does not in any way refer to the Foreshore piece of land now under discussion,” is the confirmation and completion of the whole transaction, inasmuch as it takes off that portion of the block, amounting to less than 5 per cent., which No. 2 deed had reserved to Governmen, and assures to Captain Read in clearly and defined terms, the allotment numbered 373 on the township plan containing 2a Or 19p. This last deed, as before stated, though executed on the 18th of Feb., 1873, virtually takes precedence of the other two, as it is made retrospective to the Ith day of Feb., 1870. It also explains the reason for executing the former two deeds, and most definitely

proves that no person whatever has any right title or interest m that portion o £ the Foreshore whereon Common £shblton’b premises now stand, save and except the Government. Now is the time, or never, to trot out the bogus deed —or rather the copy which ex-Couneillor Chbisp positively assured the Council he had “ seen and read.” 1£ anything whatever was ( orevioutily wanting to prove Messrs (. .'ommow, Shelion, & Co.’s claim n fterly groundless, and without a shadow of right or title, we have it in t his thi rd deed dated Feb. 18, 1873 (i vith a , diagram annexed showing the >re«h ore and roads deducted from the ori gmal block, which extended to the riv er), but which takes effect from 'he , i day »f Feb 1870. The sole obstacl e i low remaining is the agreement with the Borough Council, and as soon its the Government has vested the For ?shore in the Harbour Board, the saving clause in the agreement will then i take effect, and the final coup de g race given to the claim which should m wer have been made or entertained, and which has proved alike discreditable to nil parties concerned.