PREFERENCE AT LAND BALLOTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 94, 9 April 1908, Page 2

PREFERENCE AT LAND BALLOTS.

THE OTIiIiAIKK CASIO

Per Press Association, Wellington. Wednesday The hi.'iiring of tin' c.ise of Mitchell iinil Melvcllar in respect to a claim for [irrimw in the allocation of Setlions in the Otokaike Estate is being continued before the Court of Appeal. .Mr. Husking continued the argument for plaintiffs. He contended that the ie. lalionship created by suction 80 of the Act was contractual, there being ,ui of"er by plaintilfs and an acceptance by he Hoard subject lo the .Minister's ap.roval. The conditions were fulfilled uid the contract completed ami inviiicable. The Court should, by granting the remedies prayed for, enforce its performance by the Bo.ird. ' Mr. lloskui" further contended that plaintiffs had been deprived of their employment bv the acquisition of the estates, but oven if that were not so, the Hoard having once found in their favor, such finding was conclusive and could not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. .Sections 4S, 4i>, 52, 53, and ill) of the Land Act constituted tlie Hoard a tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction for determining questions of fact, assuming that the Board had jurisdiction to review the evidence the linding of the Board could not be disturbed. Employment on the very land acquired was not essential so long I as the plaintiffs were employed by llio | Owners of the land. Wellington, Last Night. Dr. Findlay, for the Board, contended the Board had absolute discretion under section 80 of the Act sßfeu whether it would grant preference to employees who had been deprived or employment. They also hail power to refuse to put section SO in force before the land was thrown open for selection, and if it refused applic ilions under that section no person would be aggrieved, and there would be no right of appeal to tlie »upreme Court. lie further contended that the board had no jurisdiction to decide whether plaintiffs had fulfilled the qualifications of section 80, that being a question of law. fn deciding in plaintills' favor the board misinterpreted the law, and then the Act, being ultra vires, was in consequence nullified. The Board's confirming the resolution was not the .Minister's approval, and lie claimed that the Minister's approval must be before the grant. In litis cse it was subsequent. Finally, n,! eo.iteuaed the pl.untilfs did noi jluiil the qualifications prescribed under section 80 v Mitchell was not manager of the Otekaike station, but of the I'iains' station, a subordinate station to Otekaike, which was not sold to the Government. The intention of section 80 was that it ■should apply only lo employees on land acquired. As to Mclvell,,r,' he was actually in tlie employ of the owner when he made the application, and, therefore, had not lost his employment. Mr. Solomon, also for the Board, followed, contending that the Supreme Court had almple power to review the decision of the board, as the land under the Land for Settlement Act was not in the simc category as Crown lands. The decision of the board on questions of fact were final and conclusive. Even if the provision applied to the decision under the Land for Settlement Act it applied only to decisions on a question of fact, directly arising from their duties, and not o preliminary questions. Mr. Hosking will reply to-morrow.