PREFERENCE AT LAND BALLOTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 93, 8 April 1908, Page 4

PREFERENCE AT LAND BALLOTS.

l'er Press Association. ! Wellington, Tuesday. The Appeal Court to-day began Hie hcjr.ng uf the argument in the Otckaiko case, a case brought by Mitchell and -McKcllar ag.iiust tile Utago Land Hoard, and removed for judgment into the Court of Appeal. Plaintiffs had been managers for over li\c yea is of luo stations in Oamarti district owned by Robert Campbell and Sons, which in l'Jltt were acquired by. the Covernmenl lor closer settlement.' Plaintiffs applied lor two of the allotments to be transferred to them without competition by billot tinder section St) of the Land Law>Amendment Act, IUU7. The Board decided lhal plaintiffs were entitled to the sections without competition, and granted the application, subject to the approval of the -Minister for Lands. In January the Commissioner of Crown Lands for'oiago intimated the Minister's approval, but on February li the Commissioner intimated that doubls had arisen ns to the legality of the grant. I'lamlill's were summoned to attend before the Hoard on February 12 to answer such questions and give such iiitonn.iliou a- was desired. Plainlill's attended, and their counsel conibnttcd the jurisdiction of tile Hoard to bold any inrther enquiry after having once made the grant. Subsequently evidence was given, ami the Hoard confirmed its former deci-

sron to make tlic grant. After a good J deal of correspondence between the Minister and plaintiffs' counsel ,tlio Minister ; Intimated early in March that it was 1 not intended to approve the action of l the Board. On March 7 the sections ' allotted plaintiffs were advertised as < open for Selection, whereupon plaintiffs commenced this action against the Com- 1 missioner, claiming an injunclion re- ' straining the Board from balloting tne ' ■sections and a writ of mandamus to ' compel the Board to grant leases to plaintiffs. Defendants admitted the fact? but claimed that plaintiffs were not en ; titled to a grant under section SO, and that it li:ul no power to make a grant, and further that the grant "was subjet to the approval of the Minister, who had uncontrollable discretion in the matter. It was admitted that the Minister had approved the decision of the Board, but, no lease having actually boon granted. I it wa.s claimed he had power to cancel his approval. Wellington, Last Night. In the Appeal Court, Mr. Ilosking was proceeding to open the case for plaintiffs when Dr. Findlay, on behalf of the defendant Board, offered to waive all technical defences if plaintiffs would treat the question as a pure question of law as to whether they were legally entitled under section 80 of "The Land Laws Amendment Act, 1!I07." to grant Renewable Leases of sections of Olokaiko Settlement without competition. Mr. Ilosking intimated that lie would like to consider the proposal, and the Court made a brief adjournment to allow him to do so. On resuming, Mr. Ilosking staled that in the best'interests of his clients he could not consent to waive the point, tint the approval of the Minister having been given and plaintiffs' application having been granted, the Court had not jurisdiction to enquire into the grounds of subsequent withdrawal, but must issue a writ of mandamus to the Board to carry out its decision. Mr. Ilosking then contended that a Renewable Lease was actually granted to plaintiffs, and that it was approved of bv the Minister, that approval could not'be withdrawn. rlaintnTs had satisfied all the requirements of see. tion SO of "The Land Laws Amendment Act, 1007," as to years of employment and loss of employment. Therefore (lie question was finally decided, and could not be re-opened- Defendants might contend that the approval of the Minister had to precede the grant, but it could precede it or come after it. Mr. Ilosking had not concluded argument when the Court adjourned until KUO to-morrow morning.