LAND BOARD’S DILEMMA.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 8, Issue 29, 9 April 1907, Page 4

LAND BOARD’S DILEMMA.

THEIR DECISION REPUDIATED. The Commissioner of Crown Lands (Mr F. Stephenson Smith) has received intimation from the Under-Secretary that the Minister for Lands has declined to approve the transfer of Section 7, Block VI., Flaxbonrne, from B. Saville and R, F. Spensley, joint lessees, to F. Sharpe, Seddon, It will be remembered that the Board’s resolution recommending the Minister's approval was carried on the motion of Mr Reader, Mr Seymour and the Commissioner dissenting. liygiving a complete history of the case to an Krpress reporter, the Commissioner said it was an unfortunate feature of the strict administration of the Land Acts that somebody must suiter. What the Board had always to keep before them was the danger of i speculation in any shape. There were so many people desirous of getting upon Crown land, and the supply was so much less than the demand, that every precaution had to be taken that Imiu jidv residing settlers were not barred in favour of ab.-olute speculators. Everyone knew there were in New Zealand at the present time many persons, anxious (0 become genuine farmers, who had followed the land ballots up and down the country for twenty years, without getting any nearer the realisation of their wishes. Mr Saville, examined by the Canterbury Land Board and admitted to the ballot, was successful in drawing Section 7, Block VI., Flaxbourne Settlement. Subsequently, finding he had not capital enough to work the land, he applied to the Marlborough Land Board for a transfer to Mr Macgregor, a Cheviot settler. The Beard approved the application, but the Minister vetoed it, pointing out that the Board's recommendation carried with it no stated reason for transfer equivalent to the "extraordinary circumstances ’’ of the Act. Mr Saville next applied to be allowed to take Mr Spensley. a practical farmer, in with him, in order to retain and jointly work the holding. It was understood Mr Spensley was to reside on the section, so fulfilling the requirements of the Act. Mr Spensley, however, met with misfortune in the serious illness of his wife, which precluded his removal from Canterbury to Flaxbourne. Meanwhile, Mr Saville, who is a cycle agent in Christchurch, did nothing himself towards fulfilling the residence conditions. Eventually the joint occupants applied to transfer their interest in the section to Mr frank Sharpe, and the Board approved, with the result stated above. The position now is that either the lessees must arrange to reside on the land—one or both—or the holding must be surrendered, In the case of the latter alternative the surrenderors will get value of improvements, somewhere about f.ioo ; and the section will be put up afresluo ballot. The successful! candidate will get the land at the original rental, weighted with improvements. Had the transfer been allowed, the incoming would not only have had to pay the original rental and cost rf ' improvements, but some £2OO r besides. At the lasi meeting of the Board the Commissioner made his opinion quite dear 1 that "extraordinarycircumstances" had not ! been adduced for submission to the Minister. <