WARDEN'S DECISIONS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 424, 9 January 1875, Page 3

WARDEN'S DECISIONS.

{To the Editor.) Sib. — I wish to call attention to the decision of the Warden on my application for section 38, block 111., Tuapeka West. When that section was first thrown open I applied for a lease of it. ¥ the only other applicant being L. C. Holmes. During my absence upcountry some one threw down my pegs, broke the boards on which the notices were written, and scattered tlaem about- Mr. Holmes, taking advantage of this, lodged objections against my application, and got me thrown cut on this technical point. . By this, however, he gained nothing, for, having posted up ,-his notices on Sunday, he was himself thrown out. The section was again thrown open, and I applied, along with eight others, but doubts existed in the minds of all the applicants as to the proper position of one^ff the pegs. By going to the Survey Office, as I I did, they might have found that peg ; but, taking Mr. Holmes's former statement as their guide, they all fixed on a spot five chains away from the right one. I found the correct position of the peg, and remembering how my former pegs had been served, I paid a man to shepherd them, as my business called me away elsewhere; and now, between loss of time at this season of the year and expenses incurred through Mr. Holmes raising a technical objection^ to which the Warden gave full weight as against me, I am little short of £20 out of pocket. On Monday, however, the Warden^would not listen to a technical objection given, when I was to benefited by it, of greater weight than that by >hich I was thrown out in the former instance. When my technica^objection was urged, he spoke of the " great hardship " it •would be to toothers should he listen to it ;' but there was nothing of this in the- former j instance. Setting aside my objection, he gave me the option of balloting, or having/^fhe land sold by auction as of special value. Now, air, may I ask why the Warden attaches such importance to a technical objection in the one case and allows nothing for it in another ? Not one of the applicants had complied with the Regulations save myself, and I am thrown out, though having been thrown out formerly by my pegs being down by accident or malice, I was judged as not being up to the Eegulations. One does not Jspow what to do when Iftvr is thus administered. — I am, &c.,

William Robins.