The Oekaike Leases.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXIV, Issue 3753, 9 April 1908, Page 2

The Oekaike Leases.

By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. The Appeal Court today heard argument in the Otekaike case—a case brought by Messrs Mitchell and McKellar against the Otago Land Board, and removed for judgment into the Court of Appeal. Plaintiffs had been manager for over five year 3 of two stations in the Oamaru district, owned by Robert Campbell and Sons, and which in 1907 were acquired by the Government for closer settlement. Plaintiffs applied for two of the allotments without competition by ballot, under section 80 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1907. The Board decided that plaintiffs were entitled to apply without competition and granted their applications, subject to the approval of the Minister for Lands. In January, the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Otago intimated the Minister's approval, but on February 6, the Commissioner intimated that doubts had arisen as to the legality of the grant, and plaintiffs were summoned to attend before the Board on February 12, to answer such questions and give such information as was desired. Plaintiffs attended, and then counsel protested against the jurisdiction of the Board to hold any further inquiry after having once made the grant. Subsequently evidence was given, and the Board confirmed the former decision to make the grant. After a good deal of correspondence between the Minister and plaintiffs' counsel, the Minister intimated early in March that it was not intended to approve of the action of the Board. On March 7 the sections allotted to plaintiffs were advertised as open for selection, whereupon plaintiffs commenced this action against the Commissioners, claiming an injunction restraining them from balloting the sections, and a writ of mandamus to compel them to grant leases to plaintilfs.

Defendants admitted the facts, but claim that plaintiffs were not entitled to the grant under section 80, that the Board had no power to make a grant, and, further, that the grant was subject to approval of the Minister, who had uncontrollable discretion in the matter. It was admitted that the Minister had approv|ed of the decision of the Board,but no j lease having actually been granted i he had power to cancel his approval. Mr Hosking was proceeding to open the case for the plaintiffs, when j Dr. Findlay, on behalf of the de- ' fendant Board, offered to waive all | technical defences if plaintiffs would treat the question as a pure question ! of law as to whether they were legally j entitled, under section 80 of the Land Laws Amendment Act, 1907, to the grant of the renewable leases of sections of the Otekaike Settlement, wtihout competition. Mr Hosking intimated that he ! would like to consider the proposal, j and the Court made a brief adjournI ment to allow him to do so. On re- ! suming, Mi' Hosking stated that in ! the best interests of his clients he j could not consent to waive the point ' that the approval of the Minister i having been given, and plaintiffs' api plication having been granted, the | Court had no jurisdiction to inquire I info the grounds of subsequent with- | drawal, but must issue a writ of | mandamus to the Board to carry out its decision. Mr Hosking then con- | tended that the renewable lease was j actually granted to plaintiffs, and ; that it was approved of by the Minis- ! tor, and that approval could not be | withdrawn. Plaintiffs had satisfied ! all the requirements of section &0 of ; the Land Laws Amendment Act, I 1907, as to years of employment and ' loss of employment, therefore, the question was finally decided, and I could not be re-opened. Defendants ; might contend that the approval of the Minister had to precede the grant, but it could precede it or come after \ it. Mr Hosking had not concluded , his argument when the Court adjourn- | ed until 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.