S.M. COURT.

Te Aroha News, Volume XVI, Issue 222048, 8 February 1900, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

[Before R. S. Bush, Esq., S.M.]

Residence Site.—-Inga D. Gooding applied for, and was granted, section 43 Lipsey’s, as a residence site. A FORFEITURE CASE. Wm. Mclnman v. Anna M. Harris. —This was an application by plaintiff for a declaration of a residence site held by defendant. Mr - Mueller appeared for plaintiff, the defendant being represented in person. Mr Mueller, in opening, stated that this section had been held in defendant’s name since -1896, and quoted the Mining Act to show that when a section was granted for a residence site it.-4 should be used for that and no other purpose. If the provisions of the Act * as regards occupation were not complied with the ground was liable to forfeiture. , William McTnman doposecU'tlmt he had been in Te Ar<>ha for about 1 months, during which time he ha I known the section in question. It were not occupied, and only partly fenced. He was a pai liter, and if granted the sections would build theroon, and live there. He knew the section was under offer for sale, in fact there was a board on same offering the ground for sale. Questioned by Mr Harris: He did not take out his miner’s right in order to jump the- section. Mr Faes did not pay cost of the. minePs right.. William Biggs deposed that he had lived in Te Aroha for about. 11 years. Had known the section in question, for the. last three yeaYs, during which —<*. time there-had been no buildinyerected thereon. There whs a board with a ‘ For Sale’ sign on the section. Thomas Gavin gave similar tesfg—mony. He stated plaintiff had come to him for a piece of land, stating that ho could not get a section in Te Aroha. Mr Harris, on behalf of defendant, ma lo a statement to the effect that tins . was a clear case of jumping, as the-*''"-minor’s right was only taken out a daj’S before action was taken. The seciion was not taken up for specula- ■''S tivo purposes; it was intended for a place of business f r his daughter,, who at that time was under age, an t could not have the section in own name. „

The defendant (Mr Harris) questioned by Mr Mueller, stated that his daughter already possessed a business; and a residence site. The section in question were under offer for sale because she wished to get some money.. Robert Harris deposed, on defendant’s behalf, that they had been in continuous occupation, during which. they had fenced and grassed it at a cost of £23. He stated that this was the first test case of the sort, and there were some 125 sections similarlyaffected. They had expected, some money from a land transaction, with which -they would have built, but a* this was not forthcoming they «r> unable to do so. They had a judgment summons against the party owing them the money, and as soo i as tho monoy was available they woull build. As they had a family, ho thought .it was only -right that they should make provision for them, and their intention- had been to put up,a place for their daughter, who-would not then have to be paying reni" to a stranger. He hoped the Warden, would give him time, and they would put tip a building as soon as their- ; moans would permit. X-.

Mi* Mueller combated the assertion that it was a test case. It was a bare-' faced attempt to hold a section for speculative purposes, and Mr Harriet knew perfectly' well he was not complying with the Act. His client-(£bto plaintiff) was a young man who wanted a piece of land, but was practically prohibited by the prices asked holders of sections. He hoped hisWorship would grant the prayer and declare the section forfeited.

His Worship pointed out that any one over 14 years of age, who held a miner’s right, could take up a residence site, and that therefore defendant’s daughter could have originally j taken up the section. He could not ( ! allow defendant to hold a residence ; | sito, seeing that both she and -her husband were already provided for in. that respect, and, moreover, resided elsewhere. He would not grant another site to auyone who was already the holder of ono, and was against allowing a husband to hold odo sito while the wifo held another, unless they' were each prepared to reside on their own sections. He was not satisfied that tho section in question was legally' f-need, inasmuch as it v£as not sub-divided. He could not very well listen to the plea’for time, other* '■* wise such a case as this might be continued for years. In conclusion, his Worship stated that he could not take into account defendant’s intentions; lie could only' deal with the facts beforo him. . Tho requirements of the Act as regards fencing and occupation had not been complied with, and as tho now applicant was prepared to build, and hold a miner’s right, he could not seo how he could refuse the application for forfeiture. Forfeiture was accordingly declared with costs £1 14s

Mr Harris applied for, and was granted, permission to remove his fencing m terial, and some potatoes which 110 hid in die ground. He was also given a fo tnight in wh’ch to pay the costs und give possession of the ground.