WEST COAST RESERVES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 272, 14 May 1912, Page 4

WEST COAST RESERVES

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY. The Royal Commission of Inquiry into" mntt'T - i . ted with the leases under ihe U est Coast Settlement Reserves Act, 1881, resumed its sitting in Hawera on Saturday. The Courthouse was again crowded' with spectators. Mr. W elali, who had stated the cast? for the lessees at the opening of the Commission, proceeded to call evidence.

Charles Andrews, farmer, .residing at Okato, was the first witness. He deposed that he was a lessee under the Act of 1881, and owned section 2, bloek 2, Okato. He had secured 127 acres at 5s per acre. He made inquiries as to the terms upon which the land was to be offered, and informed the then reserves agent, Mr. Reynolds, that he would take the land. At the time lie considered the amount to be paid was too much, but Mr. Reynolds said he could not reduce the price without submitting it to public tender again. However, he agreed to take the selection, and went into possession some two or three months before receiving his lease. When lie received the lease he looked through it, and was not satisfied with it, because it was not what it had been represented to him when he first made inquiries. He could not say how the lease was worded, but he knew there was nothing in it about-"being paid for all improvements. He had spent* sonif £2OO to £3OO on the place, and, therefore, did not think it would.be wise to leave the selection, as lie would have got nothing for what he had spent on it. When he took possession the land was open land, with fern. He lived on the land, and as soon as he took possession he commenced to clear the land, and to improve it by the erection of a house and small buildings. He had not been able always to pay the rent when he first went on to the land. There wad some reduction made to him by the Department. Times were then bad, and the land was not paying expenses, ami he had to go out road-making and bushfelling in order to keep the land. Several times he had to borrow money to meet his rents. The Public Trustee and his officers were very good to the lessees, for they did not push them. The lessees got up a petition asking the Government to give relief, and as a rei suit the lessees were given a reduction for a certain time—he thought it was | for a venr. In his own case he could not remember exactly what his rent was reduced by. Liter, about the beginning of 1803, he became aware that he couhl convert his lease from the tenure under the 1881 Act to the tenure under the 1802 Act. He then made inquiries of 1 life solicitor, and Mr. Fisher, the Reserves Agent, and as a result he considered it would be of no advantage to convert his lease, and for another reason it would have cost him too much' money to do so, and he was then not in a position to convert his lease. Lately he had discovered a good deal about thes# leases, and had been enlightened upon matters which he was not clear on when he first took up his selection. He understood at first that he was going to lie ■paid for all improvements, and afterwards he learned something about £5 per acre that had to be paid to the j Maori owner for the value of the improvements.

Mr. Welsh: What was the value of your improvements in 1892? Were tliev over £5 per acre?

Witness: No; I don't think they were. He added that if he had' decided to convert the lease he did not know what value the valuer would have placed on the improvements. , The chairman: You don't know what value the seller is going to put on. (Laughter.) \Vitness: After 1892 things got bettef witli me. Some two or three years afterwards they began to improve a great deal. He had since spent a lot of money in improving the land, particularly between 1892 and 1900. and would then estimate the value from £8 to £9 per acre. Mr. Welsh: After 1893 did you becom# aware of the rights of conversion?

Witness: No. T did not trouble to make any inquiries. Mr. Welsh: Did you receive any notice from anyone? Witness: No. Mr. Welsh: You know of a difference in tenure now, if you did not then? Witness: Yes. He added that if h# had known of the rights of conversion, he would have come under the Act of 1892. He knew in 1900 of the difference in the tenures. Since 1900 he furthe* improved his land. In the year 1901 he built a butter-factory costing £3OO, a cowshed costing £l3O, and 1 two room® to the house costing £75. There wa§ now no fern or gorse on the land. He farmed the land, but principally did dairy farming. The total value of improvements at the present time was from £8 to £9 per acre. He asked still to come under the Act of 1892. He gave evidence before the Lands Committee of the House, and saw the memorandum of the suggested l legislation, and considered it was fair to both parties.

By Mr. Bell: Had not any previous experience of farming when he took up the lease, and it was possible he way have misunderstood the information given him, although'he did not think so. When he discovered that his lease wa« not what it was represented to be, h# did hot malce any complaint to the reserves agent, because he did not think it was of any use doing so, as he would have to go out, leaving behind all his improvements. Replying to the chairman, witness said 'he -was unable to explain why he did not inquire of the reserves agenl about his lease when he discovered thai it wa9 not what it was represented to him.

By Mr. Bell: He had never received a registered letter from the PuMie Trustee, as far as he could remember, notifying the rights of conversion unde* the 18p2 Act.

Mr. Bell said that the Public Trustee •had forwarded notices of the Tight of conversion under this Act to the lessees. Mr. Kerr: What was your reason fo» not converting when you had the opportunity of doing so?

He replied that the first reason "was that he had to put a certain amount of money down, and he could not get i#' then. Secondly, .he stood the risk oi having his rent raised, and he did not know what the fresh valuation on the land would be. Mr. Kerr: Could you not have got an estimated value before surrendering the old' lease? Witness: But not from the partifts or the Public Trustee. Replying to Mr. Welsh, witness said he could not say if there were any holdings in his district held under the occupation licenses and sub-let to Europeans, although he held one for seven years.

The chairman intimated that he did not purpose hearing further evidence that day. He announced that tlhe Commission would sit at Opunake on Wednesday and Thursday, the 15th and 16th' inst., and at New Plymouth on the Saturday, Monday and Tuesday following. The Commission would then return to Hawera, when the Maori evidence ■would be taken.—Star.