WARDEN'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 356, 16 May 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, LAWRENCE.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., Warden.) Wednesday, Mat 13th. The application of John Drysdale for aa agricultural lease of section .26, block YL, Tuapeka West, was refused, as there w fat the second time no appearance of the ap» , plicant. , The following applications for agricultural I«hm were granted without eppo*iti«a;— * 0

ThomM Giimour, for sections 3 and 14, block VII., WaitahuriaWest; Archibald Ronald, for Mction 74, block 1., Waitahuna West ; Richard Nichols, for section 23, block 11., Twpeka East. The following application* were adjourned, ♦o giT« the Warden an opportunity of inspecting the land : — Thomas Orr, for an agri«ultural lease of sections 1, 2, and 20, block 1,, Tuapeka East; and William Claringbold, lot a residence area. JTht application of John Hogg for an agricultural leave of section 62, block 111., and •ection 66, block VI., Tuapeka East, was Bbfeeted to "by William Box, on the ground tbit the area applied for waspartof the Mining Bfcirve. He failed to show, however, that he "frfald.be prejudiced, and the objection was wallowed, with one guinea costs. Mr. M'Coy •fpeared for the applicant. The application of Malcolm M'lnnesfor an africultural lease of section 46, block X., Toapeke. East, was objected to by Mr. Siminonds, and also by Mr. Smythe and others -jßumben of a Committee of the residents this of Wetherstones, who were objecting to this among several applications on, block X., on the ground chiefly that the applications wereTmade mala fide. There was no appearance of the applicant. The application was adjourned for*l4 days, and the Warden directed that special notice should be given to those who were objected to on account of suspicion as to their bona fidts. Mr. M'Coy, viho appeared for the objectors, said that his clients suspected that the applications in block X., to which he was instructed to ob8zt r were in reality made for the benefit of r. Cameron or Mijj Donald John M'Donald ; to bona fide settlement there was no objection. There was no provision for subpoenaing witnesses ; but if there was suspicion, bis Worship need not grant the applications until it was removed. He intended, therefore, in those cases in which he was employed on this ground, to ask his Worship the applications until the appli<^^Bhad been examined on oath, as no one V^Rne applicant could say with certainty whether he applied in good faith or not. His Worship asked whether any of the objectors were applying themselves. Mr. M'Coy said he believed so, but it was monopoly, and not bona fide settlement that was objected to. His Worship asked Mr. M 'Coy to point out any clause restricting a person to 200 acres. Mr. M'Coy said that no such restriction clearly appeared, but it is evidently the intention that such a restriction should exist, and such intention was always acted on. His Worship said there was a departmental regulation to that effect; and then gave the direction above refen ed to.