SECOND EDITION. A LAND CASE.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9115, 7 April 1908, Page 5

SECOND EDITION. A LAND CASE.

Per Press Association. Wellington. April 7. Before the Appeal Court argument was begun in the Otekaike case brought by Mitchell and McKellar against the Otago Land Board and removed for judgment into the Court of Appeal. Plaintiffs had been managers for over five years of two stations in Oamaru district, owned by Robert Campbell & Sons, which in 1907 were acquired by Government for closer settlement. Plaintiffs applied for two of the allotments without competition by ballot under section 80 of the Land Laws Amendment Act 1907. The Board decided that plaintiffs were entitled to apply without competition and granted the application subject to the approval of the Minister of Lands. In January the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago intimated the Minister’s approval, but on 6th February the Commissioner intimated that doubts had arisen as to the legality of the grant and plaintiffs were summoned to attend before the Board on February 13th to answer such questions and give such information as desired. Plaintiffs attended and their counsel protested against the jurisdiction of the Board to hold any further inquiry after having once made the grant. Subsequently evidence was given and the Board confirmed their former decision to make a grant. After a good deal of correspondence between the Minister and plaintiffs counsel for the Minister intimated early -in March that it was not intended to approve of the action of the Board and on March 7th the sections allotted to plaintiffs were advertised for open selection whereupon plaintiffs commenced this action against the Commissioner claiming an injunction restraining them from ballotting for the sections and a writ of mandamus to compel them to grant leases to plaintiffs. Defendants admitted the facts, but claimed that plaintiffs were not entitled to a grant under section 80 and that the Board had no power to make a grant and further tiie grant was subject to the approval of the Minister who had uncontrolablo discretion in the matter. It was admitted that the Minister had approved the decision of the Board, but no lease having actually been granted he had power to cancel his approval.