WEST MAST RESERVES

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 282, 25 May 1912, Page 3

WEST MAST RESERVES

COMMISSI OX OF ENQUIRY. SITTING AT HAWERA. The Commission of Enquiry into the leases held under the West Coast Re- J serves Act resumed its sittings in Ha- j wera on Wednesday afternoon, when j Mr. R. D. Welsh continued his ease for J the lessees. The Court was crowded j with natives. ' John White Foreman was the first' witness. He said he lived at Tikorangi, New Plymouth. He was a farmer, and was the original lessee of section 101, block 5, Waitara. He took up the lease in 188.); he held it for some time, and converted it into a lease under the Act of 181)2. This took place in 1893. When he took the lease he was not aware of the terms, but he thought it carried the right of renewal, but apparently it did not. He knew of the effect of the limitation of £5 per acre. He understood that the improvements included grassing,' fencing, drainage and "building up to, the limit of £5. He first discovered his error as to the right of renewal only a few months ago. At the time he purchased the lease it was recognised generally by the people in the district that the upset rental was too high. Some three or .four years afterwards, about 188!). the value of the stock and other products" of the land became very low, and the lessees found that they could not hold the land profitably. In common with other lessees he petitioned the Government for relief, because unless there was a reduction in the rent the lessees intended to abandon the land. He went on to explain that in some cases reductions were made, and some went on for some years without paving rent. Willi tins passing of the 1S!)2 Act he with others, desired to convert his lease under Hint Act. Mr. Welsh: What was your object in converting in 1802? Witness: I had two objects. One was to get a new lease which would give me full compensation for improvements, and secondly to obtain a further reduction in rent. Perhaps I might reverse the position, placing the reduction on land as being the main object. Mr. Welsh: You did convert? Witness: Yes. Mr.-Welsh: AYlmt happened to the. rent? Witness replied that be got a re-, duel ion of from (Is to 4s fid per acre. Continuing, he said that in the year 18!l(i or 1S!)7 he transferred the lease, to his son. He also acquired in January, 18!)! l, the lease of.section part 10, block 10. from Mr. C. H. Jury. It was taken in the name of his son. John Foreman. The improvements would be about ,£t per acre. He did not take steps to convert that lease because there was not an opportunity to do so. Mr. Welsh: What opportunities of conversion were you aware of? Witness: Oiilv that afforded in. 1803. Had lie lieen aware of the Act of 1802 he would have taken the land under that Act. so that ho could have obtained full compensation for improvement, and the absolute right of renewal. He mentioned that it was necesI sary for the small farmer to have improvements in excess of the £5. At present the improvements on this sec-

tion may be between £5 and £6, but much would depend upon the valuer. At this stage there was some discussion between counsel and the Commission as to what area, if any, there was in the witness's district, which the natives had the right to occupy under their licenses, but which they did not occupy and sub-leased to Europeans, who paid the natives rent. Mr. Bell, counsel for the natives, said if it would assist the Commission, and to shorten the proceedings, he would admit that there was a considerable area of native land so held in the Taranaki district. Mr. Welsh: Can you carry that any further? ' • Witness: Only to the extent of the Clifton County Council. He then went into a long explanation of the steps taken by his Council, of • Inch he was chairman, to. get the names of those holding such land placed on the rate roll so as to"get the rates to assist in the upkeep of the roads. He believed that as far as Taranaki >vas concerned, Egmont and Clifton County Councils were the only two local bodies to take steps to have these people put upon the roll, so it would be impossible for the Valuer-General to give a fair estimate as to the information in this respect. It had been previously arranged that the Public Trustee would supply this information. Mr. Bell: You told us you paid no rent for some years. I think Mr. Foreman, you are the principal agitator (I do not mean to use the word offensively) to get the Clifton County Council to enforce the payment of rates on all these sections. Witness: Well, I have tried to obtain that. He had always' held that where men were holding land they should contribute to the upkeep of the roads and bridges according to valuation. Mr. Bell: If they don't pay, you sue them. Witness: We would do that readily enough if the law would allow it. In the course of some further crossexamination the witness stated that the Public Trustee had been a very fair landlord. The. chairman said he could not understand the gentlemen who had come before the Commission if they did not know of the right to convert under the Act of 1802, not knowing of the two subsequent chances. Witness: I have never heard of them. The Chairman: That is what astonishes me. Charles K. Jury, farmer, Tikorangi, deposed that he sold his lease to the last witness after having held it for twelve or fourteen,years. He knew of the right" to convert under the Act of 1892 in 1893. Mr. Welsh: Did you hear of any right after that? Witness: No* sir. There were no questions. Thomas McKenzie stated that he was a farmer residing at Tikorangi, and he held a lease under the Act of 1881, being section 51, block 6, Waitara. It was all standing bush ln.nd when he purchased it, with no improvements. He had since felled the bush, . grassed the land and fenced it. When he purchased the property he knew of the limit of £5 per acre for improvements, but he did not hear about the right as to conversion until 1893. He then made application to come under the ■ 1802 Act, but did not proceed with it as there was a proposal to raise .the rent, which he considered was an unfair value. Besides, he was not then in too good a financial position, and in order to keep the land he had to do other work off it. He did not hear of any further right of conversion until November of last year, Had he. known of the right to convert in 1900 he might have had another try to do so, because he was then in a better position. The value of his improvements in 1895 would be between £3 and £4, .in 1900 between £(! and £7, and to-day between £lO and £l2 per acre. Replying to Mr. Bell, he said he could not help putting these improvements upon the land. He was forced to do it in order to got a living off the place. He had no option.

Ceorge Poteli. Waitp.ra, said he was a lessee under the Act. of 18SI. He aequiroil the land in 18HR and paid £2OO for it. it was improved at that time, and the improvements now would he valued at from £!) to £lO. When he purchased he knew of the £■"> limit, but he did not know of the right to eonver| About a fortnight since he had lienrd of that right. He had resided on (lie land ever since. Francis William Matthews, farmer, residing at Tikorangi. said he was the holder of se.cli.on 4.5. block 5. Wa.itara, under the Ac! of ISSI. which he 'bought in 18114. The improvements at.the time were' not, worth more than £4 per acre. Since he had purchased he had carried out inipvovenienti which 10-day he ■would value at £ 6 per aere. Under cross-examination the witness said he knew what the bargain was when he took up the least, but being a stranger to New Zealand he did not know anything about these West, Coast leases, and it was possible that the agent who sold him the property had not known everything either. Tie wished to get Urn advantages offered by the Act'of 1802. This was all the evidence for the afternoon, and the Commission adjourned until the. next day.—Hawera Star.