"FLAGRANT EXPLOITATION"

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 3, 4 June 1913, Page 6

"FLAGRANT EXPLOITATION"

TRAFFIC IN CROWN LEASES. STRAIGHT SPEAKING BY JUDGE COOPER. ' ' Auckland, May 30. An important judgment bearing on traffic-in Cro t wn "leases', was delivered' by, Mr. Justice Cooper at the Supreme Court this morning. • The case was the claim of George jtames Edwards against Seth Webb and Martin Roberts, and,it' was heard before his Honor at the recent circuit sittings at Hamilton, a point of law having them been left for the Bench to decide. Defendants are the holders of 2956 acres of "settlement land" at Matamata, and the plaintiff sued them for alleged breach of agreement to sell the leasehold interest in one thousand acres of it.

In the course of his judgment his Honor said"Defendants have contracted to sell 2600 acres, in five areas, of the 2955 acres held by them, and the total purchase money for these five areas is £8&75. If these transactions are carried out and the purchase moneys paid the defendants will make a profit of over £BOOO, and they will still retain nearly four hundred acres of land leased, and this area lias also been agreed to be sold to someone. The whole of these transactions have taken place within the first 12 months of the term of the lease, and within 18 months of the date of the lease. This is speculation of the gravest kind, in land which was acquired by the Government under the Land for Settlement Act, for the purpose of bona fide settlement." In this action the plaintiff claimed damages from- the defendant for alleged breach of an agreement made between him and the defendant. In June 18, 1912, the defendant agreed to sell and plaintiff to purchase "the leasehold estate and interest" of the vendors in a block of land; one thousand acres, more or less, in porth-western part of, section" i<ls, of'tie Matamata settlement., jvliile adini't : Ohf ? tijgt the, of the Land Board was necessary' to the; transfer of the land-, : idfcnied, that stioh conseht was necessary to its possession. Pending the obtaining of such consent they denied that the plaintiff was ready to perform the agreement, that they, ; had refused to apply to the; Land Board for its consent to the agree-! ment, and that they refused to give possession to plaintiff. They filed a counterclaim for damages from the plaintiff for his alleged refusal to perform the agreement. The question of law which his Honor had been asked to decide ( was whether the defendants had any power to give pbssession of the land in question to the plaintiff, and whether the agreement was not an unlawful one, as contravening the provisions of the Land for Settlement Act. His Honor said:' "Land leased to defendants is settlement land within the meaning of the Land for Settlement Act, 1908, acquired by the drown under the Act. It is also 'rural' land within the meaning of that Act and of the Land Act, 1908. The term of the lease commenced on July 1, 1911. The rental was £33 per year, but the lessees had to pay £>69o for improvements by the previous owner. The total acreage was 2956. Defendants had prior to the making of the agreement with the plaintiff entered into four similar agreements with other persons to sell • their interest in four portions, j The agreed purchase money for one thousand acres to be sold to the plaintiff was £3500. Defendants had contracted to sell 2000 acres of the 2950 acres held by them, and the total purchase money for these five areas is £8875. In my opinion," said his Honor, "it is clear that the provisions of the Land for Settlement Act were intended to prevent land being acquired by selectors under that j Act for any other purpose tha,n bona fide settlement, and it is the duty of the Court to construe these provisions and those of the Land Act of 1908 in such a way as'to give effect, if possible, to the manifest intention of the Legislature." His Honor went on to say that the Land for Settlement Acts from the time of the first Act of 1892 up to the : passing of the present Act of 1908, were also intended to provide a means by which landless persons desirous of becoming bona fide settlers should be ablo to obtain land,, Restrictive provisions to effect this were becoming from time to time more stringent. It was enacted in section 9 of the Lands for Settlement | Act, 1901, that every applicant should reside continuously upon the section he had obtained. This section now appears as section 54 of the Act of 1908. In 1896 the period within which a successful applicant was restricted from disposing of his lease without the consent of the Land Board or the approval of the i Minister was extended to five years, this provision being re-enacted in 1900 and again in 190 S. It was found that this was not sufficient to prevent land being acquired for purposes of speculation, and in 1901 the Legislature absolutely pro-' h'bited the transfer of land comprised in a lease within a period of five years except in the case of death or some "extraordinary event." In 1908 the provision was limited to rural land, being, presumably, considered inapplicable to town or suburban allotments. His Honor agreed with tlip solicitor for the defendants that the mischief which the Legislature intended to prevent was the opportunity for dummyism, and exploiting by land speculators of land intended for landless persons solely for bona fide settlement. ''The present is a flagrant mse of such exploitation," he continued. "The defendants have acquired the lease ostensibly for bona fide settlement by them at a rental of £33 per year and a cash .pavment of £690 for improvements. Within a few months after the date of the lease they have agreed to sell their interest in 2600 acres of the block of 2950 acres for sums of money which, if the agreements can be carried out, will return them a net profit of over £BOOO. It is such transactions as these that I am satisfied the Legislature intended to forbid. Section 65 must receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as will best ensure the object of the enactment in its ! true intent, and that object is, I cannot doubt, to prevent applicants who are successful selectors from trafficking in land they are fortunate enough to obtain