The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVRY EVENING. GISBORNE TUESDAY, AUGUST 26.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 219, 26 August 1884, Page 2

The Telephone. WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE POVERTY BAY STANDARD. PUBLISHED EVRY EVENING. GISBORNE TUESDAY, AUGUST 26.

We were in hopes, when the Board, after a great deal of wrangling, finally passed the valuation on the premise’s on the foreshore occupied by Messrs. Common, Shelton and Co., that that particularly nauseous subject had started on a fair way to final and peaceful settlement. But we grieve to find we were mistaken. Bight through this business from beginning to end, the part taken by Common, Shelton and Co., has been a continual shuffle from one point to another. The question has been agitating the public mind continuously since the 14th April, 1882, the date of the first agreement between the Borough Council and Common, Shelton and Co. This agreement was intended to have been ratified by the Harbor Board, which was shortly afterwards formed, and which, to make

assurance doubly sure, was so worked that the members of the Council became the Board. Naturally enough it was supposed by those who had. the scheme in hand that the gentlemen who, as the Council, had already agreed to a certain course, would without demur, as the Harbor Board, ratify the same. But “ the best laid plans of mice and men gang aft agee.” Between the time of making the agreement and its presentation for ratification certain light was thrown in which made it obvious to the Board that all was not as it should be, and fresh negotiations were opened between the parties. The foreshore and all buildings thereon were vested in the Board by the Gisborne Harbor Board Act, without any conditions or restrictions save such as are appended to the schedules of the

various Harbor Acts passed in the colony from time to time. Common, Shelton and Co. appear to have supposed at the time of the passing of this Act that they had some imaginary right to that pari of the foreshore, but, probably for reasons best known to themselves, have not put it forward, being content to make a cat’s paw of the Board, and as soon as the Board had made what they thought a satisfactoiy arrangement, Common. Shelton and Co. have' seen fit to introduce some legal quibble and upset the arrangement. The Board as a last resource resolved to put the property up to auction, and with a desire to

meet Messrs. Common & Co. accepted a valuation which was to be paid to Common & Co. by any person who might outbid them at the auction sale, allnough the valuation was far beyond the worth of the buildings. As, however, no bid was made, the whole proceeding lapsed, the valuation and all arrangements made in that connection being nullified at the same time. It is quite possible for even “ smart business men ” to be too clever, and it would appear that the parties who have so long defied the Board are at last to be hoist with their own petard. Mr. Rees has given a ca-efully worded opinion in reply to the Board’s memo, and much weight may be attached to it, as whatever peop'e may say abcut M-. Rees politically, we have neve.- heard but one opinion as to his abi'ity as a professional man. Mr. Rees says:—• (1). All legal and equitable rgihts to that portion of the foreshore upon which

Common & Co’s, store stands are held by the Gisborne Harbor Board. The right to the soil carries with it the right to all buildings erected thereon, and the right also to the present possession of the property as well as to the recovery of mesne profits from the Crown grants. The right to immediate possession being good as against all the world, the right to recover mesne profits only being available against those who have occupied the property. (2). In answer to the second question, Common & Co. have no claims arising either from law and equity against the Board. Whatever claims those gentlemen may have had in the past arising out of agreements made with the Borough Council or the Board fell with the agreements themselves. No claim can be urged against the Board by Common & Co., unless the Board of its own motion chooses to enter into some fresh contract by the terms of which of course it would be bound. (3.) As to the third question, what remedy is to be pursued by the Board in vindication of its rights. It is quite possible that under the byelaws of the Board summary proceedings before the Resident Magistrate or two J.P.'s could, by virtue of the Harbor Acts have been instituted against Common & Co., and probably with success. On the other hand the disadvantage arises of submitting to a local and inferior Court questions of great public importance, in which it is essential to the public interest that such consideration should be given to the questions raised as could be afforded only by a tribunal altogether removed from the influence of local feeling and guided by the widest knowledge of law. As de facto Common & Co. have been in possession for many years, and as that possession has been assented to continuously by the Board, a claim for instant possession should be made in writing by the Board upon Common & Co., together with a claim for mesne profits, or recompense, for use and occupation since the date of the Crown grants, and in case Common & Co. refuse to give up possession, or neglect to answer the demand so made, within a reasonable time, that a writ of ejectment or possession in the Supreme Court be issued against Common & Co. by the Harbour Board. The latter part of the legal opinion has evidently opened the eyes of the firm referred to, who have been, according to general impression, endeavoring to hold possession as long as possible, and then when forced out, to leave the Board in the lurch as to any claim for back rent, in the absence of an agreement for payment of such rent. But the subsequent action of the Board has put a new face on the affair, and a claim of fyoo for the use o' the premises since the Crown grant was issued has come like a bomb-shell from

a masked battery into the enemy’s camp, and necessitated a hurriedlydevised movement on their part. This consists in endeavoring to again bluff the Board off by raising more legal quibbles, and again making overtures for peaceful settlement now they are cornered. ■ With his Worship’ the Mayor we are very sorry for Common, Shelton & Co., but they have brought the trouble on themselves. We shall be very much surprised if the Board, after having so often heard the cry of wolf when there was no wolf, will allow themselves to be decoyed into another net instead of going on with the matter boldly as they have now begun. A peaceful settlement will no doubt be much preferred by both sides, but let the advance be made by Messrs. Common & Co., and let the Board consider well before they even think of granting a further amnesty. They have got by far the best of the case now, but one false step might alter matters considerably. Then let the Boaid beware, and recollect the Russian proverb, “ When you baptize a Jew keep him under wate-.” To prevent further mistakes let no motions be hu-riedly carried and then regretted afterwards. If they follow up their present advantage the matter will soon be settled, but dillydallying will only make confusion worse confounded.