Untitled

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 41, 24 August 1870, Page 4

l&KtiUvertisßnieut appeared in our issuej of the 10th inst., respecting the cattle depasturing on that part of the Mount Pisa Station known as the Cromwell Flat. The annual charge per head is reduced from 20s to 10s. A ranger is to be provided by the cattle-owners, instead of by the stationholders, as at present. This, no doubt, is an improvement. The people who are directly interested will provide the ranger, and pay him, and to them he will be accountable. If their cattle come to grief, the remedy is in their own hands. The boundaries within which the cattle are permitted to graze, and beyond which they are to be regarded as trespassing, are of course but dimly sketched in the advertisement, but can be more sharply defined to the ranger in charge when his duties commence. Our readers will remember that a meeting was recently convened for the purpose of memorialising the Provincial Government on this subject. The wider question of commonage for the district was raised, but the meeting chiefly confined its attention to the hardship of having their cattle fenced against on the Lower Plat. There had been a virtual agreement between the station-holders and the cattle-owners : the latter stipulated to pay certain sums annually, that their cattle might enjoy certain privileges ; and one of the most essential of those privileges was free access to the water-line and the Lower Flat. Now, if the people are expected to fulfil a virtual agreement, is it a matter of option with the station-holders whether they will do so or not 1 Is it a matter of indifference with them whether they fulfil their agreement or not, merely because it is virtual, and cannot be maintained in law 1 The people perfectly understood the condition upon which they could graze their cattle on the run, and had no alternative but to comply. They were not at liberty to say how much, and no more, of the pound a head they would pay. Are the station-holders at liberty to say how much, and no more, of the understood pasturage they will supply? If the people can be legally held to the conditions of a virtual agreement, and the runholders refuse to be held morally accountable for the conditions on their part, the arrangement must be regarded as altogether one-sided. It is agreed that there was no understanding that the Lower Flat j should not be fenced. Nor was there an | understanding that the Upper Flat should | not be fenced off. If the matter is put i upon that footing, there was no agreement j that the cattle should not be shut within the town boundary, and the people made

to pay a pound a head for keeping them there. We have spoken of the agreement ] as virtual, but it was more than that. The i ranger- was understood by both parties to j keep the cattle within certain boundaries, < and the Lower Flat was certainly included. ( The above is a fair representation of the ( sentiments that governed the meeting al- ] luded to. We have expressed those senti- j ments in our own words. Our readers ] haye here a truthful copy of the original, , beaten on' our own anvil, but the hot metal supplied by the meeting. The Provincial Government was appealed to by memorial at the request of the meeting. The answftft of the Government to the memorialists come to hand, and we confess we are) 5* startled at the import of that reply, -ty J goes to show that the station-holders have, J not the power of sub leasing any part ok I their runs. Now, if this statement is ; trustworthy, if it will hold water -before 1 the Resident Magistrate, Mr GoodgeFs -f fence on the Lower Flat has no right be placed there. It secures to him jfo prx 7 : 1 vilege that he did not possess before, aridi j that his neighbours do not possess in com-" 1 inon with himself. The fence will lighten; y the labour of the ranger, and it will do no’ • more than this. The Trespass Act will ( give Mr Goodger no protection against the , cattle of the district. And what appUMsU to Mr GoodgUfe.applies to all the occupier*? of land adjacent. The paddocks fenced on! the Flat may give an exclusive right tuj the occupiers so long as the strength of the fences maintain it, and the courtesy forbearance of their neighbours permit} ltd . but no longer. A case came off at thft Court in Cromwell soma twelve moißrog ago, which goes far towards supporting tfiSaS decision of the Government, above referred- - to. Mr Maidman at the Luggate sura-"* moned Mr Hare for a breach of the Trespass Act. Hare’s cattle had entered Maidman’s enclosed paddock, and damages were laid at a given sum. The first question raised before the Court was a question of ownership. The trespass was nut denied ; the damage was not disputed ; the ownership, however, could not be sustained, and , the case broke down, the costs falling to ; plaintiff. And as the fences on the Lower . Flat become frailer, and the feed becomes tinore tempting to the hungry cattle out!su!e, cases will come before the Court that . will put the question beyond all doubt. no safer tenure than the permission of the ruuholder, it would hardly be wise to put an expensive onclosuae round even good laud, and it is positive folly to put it round bad land. There is always a small portion of all settlers willing and even glad to take advantage where there is not legal redress, though supported by as much moral reason as the Ten Commandments. We have written the above on the presumption that the reply of the Government to the memorialists is sound and legally reliable. But we have some misgivings here. We would not like to be defendants in a Court of law with a plaintiff in support of a question on the other side. Why cannot a squatter sub-lease his run, that he holds under a depasturing license from the trustees of the Crown ? He can set upon it a marketable value, and sell I his entire interest in it to the highest bid- j der. He can fence it in as caprice or con-1 veuience may dictate. He can will it as | a property to bis heirs. He can claim re-! dress for trespass. If the Government resume control over it, he can claim compensation. It is liable for debt, and can be distrained on to satisfy creditors. He can block up roads, and divert traffic from beaten ways used for seven or ten years ; at least this is done, and we suppose legally. And we should like to know what powers are conferred by a fee-simple, that ■ are not conferred by a depasturing license, i Giving all the weight due to the case | Maidman v. Hare, and the reply of the Government to the memorialists, we in- j dine to the belief that the squatter has the i power of sub-leasing bis whole run or any of the parts of which it is composed. We quite expect that the result of the correspondence with the Provincial Government will clear up this matter. If the depasturing license give all other privileges, and fall short at the point of sub-leasing, we shall be much surprised. Mining interference with station property in proclaimed < districts has not been alluded to here, be- ■ cause the question has no bearing that way. I If there be nothing exceptional in Mr i Loughnan’s depasturing license, then we | think he has the power of sub-leasing. ■ There was no doubt some opening in the , correspondence with the Government that • admitted of misapprehension, and that ini financed the Government in their reply. < The misunderstanding may be corrected i by further information.