ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3800, 2 May 1891, Page 2

ALLEGED DUMMYISM.

ANOTHER ENQUIRY.

The enquiry into the case of alleged dummyism m connection with section 51, block 8, Mangahao, held by H. Ratsey, was, according to the Post, commenced at the Land Board yesterday morning. The members pre* sent were—Messrs J. W. A. Marchant (Commissioner), W A. Pitz herbert, W. W. McCardle, and A. W. Hogg, M.H.R. Mr Gully, Crown Prosecutor, appeared to conduct the examination of witnesses, and opened the proceedings with a brief statement of the position of affairs. Mr M. Chapman appeared on behalf of Mr Batsey, and Mr Tosswill for C. E. Beotham.

Mr Wright, Chief Clerk in the Land Office, was first railed, and gave formal evidence as to the position of the section.

Heney Ratrey was next called, and stated that in November, 1889, he became the holder of section 51, Mangahao. He was then and was still employed on Mr C. K. Beetbain's station as Te Aute, The money in

consideration of the transfer from Dr Williams was paid by Mr Beetham. He could not recollect the amount. It was simply an advance, for whicli he gave him security over certain land at Hastings, in which he had invested JBSOO. He knew nothing about the land, bnt was recommended by his father to take it up. It was bordering on Mr Bee^ham's

property, and Mr Beetham advanced from time to time the money necessary to effect the required improvements. Mr Beetham paid all the liabilities just as if the land was his own. Witness went upon t,bo land for *he first time about a month ago. He would swear that he vrn < a bona ,/Wo xppplicant for the land, and that he still intended to keep it. The reason he proposed to transfer the land to Mr Norman Beetham wubecauso he found the liabilities too large. Mr C. E. Beetham did not

suggest the transfer; it originated from witness himself. Finding that he could not transfer to Mr Norman Beetham, he decided to borrow the moneyto complete the improvements and then acquire the title. Witness had no stock of his own upon the place, but other settlers had stock running there. Mr Beetham paid him the amount of the rent for the privilege of running his stock upon it. The bush was only felled last winter, There was no building on section SI.

To Mr Chapman—Had been living with the Messrs Beetham for 14 years. The land owned by him at Hastings cost MBO without reckoning expenses. The certificate in respect of it stood in the name of the three Messrs Beetham. At the time he took up the land at Mangahao he anticipated receiving some money from liig father, but it did not arrive.

Mr Beetbam then came forward and assisted him out of the difficulty he was in. The arrangement that Mr Beetbam should pay the rent in return for the grazing was made in last March.

To Mr Guliy-i-He had not ar» ranged to give Mr Beetbam security over the land when the freehold title was completed, but there was an arrangement with Mr Beetbam to advance the money necessary to obtain the title until witness could obtain it from Home. He expected to receive £SOO from his sister shortly. To Mr Chapman—The Messrs Beetbam had never asked him to give them security over the land wheu the title was completed. By Mr Gully—The £SOO which he had invested in land was received from Home. There was only a verbal agreement between himself and Mr Beetbam in regard to the latter's stock grazing upon witness' land. Witness' father was a member of the wellkuown firm of Ratsey and Lapthorne, sailmakers, of London, but had now retired from business.

Charles E. Beetbam pointed out on a map produced the property owned by the Messrs Beetbam. Section 51, taken up by Ratsey.. adjoined their property. In November, 1889, witness negociated the sale of section 51 from W. Williams, and afterwards told Ratsey that he had bought it for him. He was aware that an application was made iu November, 1889, to transfer the section to him, as agent for Ratsey. An application to transfer it to himself was withdrawn. He wanted it to complete a block which he had arrauged to purchase for Ratsey. It was understood that he was to look out for a good piece of land for Ratsey, and he arranged to buy sections 50, 51, 53, 54, and 55. The application, however, was confined to 51, as the others were freehold. Although bought by him, it was intended to hold the sections in Trust for Ratsey. There ■vas no deed of trust prepared. All the land mentioned wa3 used for grazing stock owned by the Messrs Beetbam, it having been arranged witli Ratsey that they were to have the grazing, . and in return pay the rent for him. This whs only a verbal agreement, and was made when Ratsey found that he was unable te take up all the land originally intended. The improvements nn section 51 were done from time to time. He paid the rent to Ratsey, who paid it to the department. The money for improvements on the ; section were paid for Ratsey by witness through his agent, Mr Hughes, at Palmerston. The other section purchased by him as trustee for Ratsey had been improved, and the cost of this had been paid, and the whole property would stand in a debit account to Ratsey when it was transferred to him. Witness looked upon it as belonging to Ratsey now, but he was controlling it lor him. Ratsey was to take over the land whenever he liked to do so. The purchase money, L 530, for section 51, was advanced by witness, who obtained security over the Hastings property. After Ratsey became the holder of section 51 he transferred his interest to witness as security for advances, but on the distinct understanding that it was only to be used m case of his (Ratsey's) death. Witness was aware that there was a mortgage over the Hastings property, and that the security was worth only a little over LIOO, but he advanced the money, feeling confident that the money which Ratsey expected to receive from Home would be available. There was money lying at the bank for the purpose of paying off the mortgage at the time the security was taken. There was no line cf fencing between section 50 and 51, but the arrangement under which witness made use of it was to cease at any time Ratsey liked.

By Mr Chapman : At the time of the purchase from Dr Williams he had less than the maximum area of perpetual lease land allowed by law ; his brothers had none at all, and might have taken up section 51 The romittanses sent out by Mr Eatsey, senr., to his son, amounted, as far as witness knew, to £SOO. Mr Ratsey, senr, did not actually refuse to advance his son the money necessary to take up the large bloctc, as originally intended, hut in a letter to witness ho demurred somewhat at the extent of the proposed purchase, and suggested ut smaller one. This was the reason why the freehold land was kept by witness, and only section 51 kept in trust for Eatsey. Shortly after the transfer of section 51 to Ratsoy, witness wrote to Ratsey.senr, explaining the whole transaction. Ratsey's total liability to witness in respect of section 51 was A'6oo.

In answer to Mr Tosswill, witness said that he remembered Mr Tosswill sending him the declaration about section 51. When he reoeived it he saw that it said that he was taking up the land for his own use aud benefit, and he declined to execute it. He afterwards saw Mr Tosswill, and told him to arrange for Dr Williams to transfer direct to Ratsey. By Mr Marchant: He still expected to bo fully recouped for aU expenditure made on behalf of Ratsey, jun, by Ratsey, sen. It was still his intention to help Ratsey to settle on section'sl. He was not iware that he was acting illegally in running stock on Ratsey's land in return for the payment of rent. The total area of grass land was about 60 acres. By Mr Tosswill—He knew that Ratsey's father was a wealthy man. By Mr Gully—The reason why Mr Norman Beetham was put forward as the transferee when Ratsey proposed to make a transfer of bis land was because witness found he would have more than the maximum area if it was transferred to him.

At 12.45 the enquiry was adjourned until 2 o'clock.

MR RATSEY EXONERATED.

On resuming, evidence was given by John Hughes, J.P., of Pahiatua, Henry James Lowe, surveyor, ranger Mackay and others. Mr Tosswill asked for the produce tion of the letter on which the enquiry was based. Mr Gully declined to produce the document.

Mr Hogg said there had been a great deal of mystery about this letter. He knew something of the author of it, and he beLeved that he had not the slightest reluctance to its coming before the Board, and the fullest publicity being given to it.

The Board then retired to consider its decision. On returning half an hour later, the Commissioner announced that the following resolution

had been carried, on the motion of Mr McCardle, seconded by Mr Fitzherbert:—"That in the opinion of the Board the charges against Mr Katsey of having committed breaches of the Laud Act have been absolutely disproved." The motion was then put and cawed, Mi? Hogg aloae dissenting. '

The Commissioner congratulated Mr Eatsey, and said that allf the Board wanted was to get to the bottom of the matter.

In reply to Mr Tosswill the Commissioner stated that the title would now be issued to Mr Ratsey. The proceedings then terminated.