16

JC. R. POLLEN.

I.—sb.

140. But without getting further information it is not customary, is it? —No. It is rather a difficult question to answer. Every transaction has a different aspect. In some transactions I might take my subordinate officers' opinion, and in others I should want to go and see for myself. It just depends what the situation is. 141. But supposing that it is not only your subordinate, but that four or five men in conjunction with him who know the land and know the circumstances recommend a certain course : it is not usual, is it, to veto their recommendation ? —No, not usual. 142. Hon. Mr. Massey.] From what you have heard of this section do you think it possible for a man with a family to make a living from it? —Seven and a quarter acres : with bees and fruit they say they can. 143. Do you know of any sections, even in Canterbury, valued at £12 an acre, where a man could make a living from 1\ acres, even with fruit and bees? —I could not tell you. But there are some smaller sections—for instance, at Hornby. 144. What are they worth per acre? —They are worth more than that. But then, of course, they are so handy to civilization. 145. How far distant is Hornby from Christchurch? —About six miles, I think. One reason why 1 say it could be done is that we have two written applications for the section. A man would hardly, unless he was a peculiar individual, make written application for a section unless he thought he could make a living from it. And there were two or three other applicants, I was told. 146. Was one of those two the beekeeper? —One was the beekeeper, and the other was a man named Ashworth. 147. Mr. Witty.] Under the present Land Act only 10 per cent, need be paid annually by those who are acquiring the freehold. Are not those better terms than the 50 per cent, down under the Cheviot Disposition Act?— What tenure are you referring to? 148. The right to acquire the freehold under last year's Act?— You mean deferred payments? 149. No, 1 mean under the Act of last year, where a leaseholder has the right to acquire the freehold? —Quite so. He can acquire it straight out, or else on deferred payment. 150. Yes, 10 per cent, each year?— Yes. 151. Those are easier terms, are they not, than the 50 per cent, that would have to be paid down within a month under the Cheviot Disposition Act?—l suppose they would be. But you must remember that he has to get that lease before he can do that. 152. Is it so —that the freehold can be acquired on better terms under last year's Act than under the Cheviot Act? —Yes. 153. Hon. Mr. Buddo.] Did the Land Board have any scruples with regard to changing their mind over the question of renewable lease and selling for cash?— There was no discussion on it.

Friday, 15th August, 1913. Joseph Gibson examined. (No. 3.) 1. Mr. Guthrie (Acting-Chairman).] You are a farmer? —Yes. 2. From ?—Cheviot. 3. Would you like to make a statement regarding this case? —If the Committee wish it I will do so. 4. The Committee would like you to? —My statement need not be very long. Probably most of you are aware that I was a member of the Canterbury Land Board for four years. About eighteen months ago a Cheviot man named Rentoul came to me and asked me about a section at Gore Bay that was held on a temporary lease by a man called Holton. I said I did not know the conditions under which the land was held, but I would inquire. At the next Board meeting I saw the clerk in charge of the map department, and found that section that was referred to, and found that as far as I could see it ought to be available for selection. I spoke to Mr. Brodrick, who was then Commissioner, and he looked into the matter and said that as far as he could see there would be no objection whatever to throwing it open. It was being held by Mr. Holton just temporarily, which, of course, we understand to be that if it is required at any time it can be resumed. The matter was put before the Land Board, and they all agreed to throw the section open on renewable lease; but the Commissioner did not want to interfere with Mr. Holton's existing lease, which was for twelve months, and we decided to wait until Mr. Holton's time was up. In the meantime he had notice sent to him, I presume, that the section would be resumed. I may say that 1 have no notes or memoranda in connection with this—l am going entirely on my memory; but all that I say can be substantiated by the minutes of the Land Board—it is all there on record. I think the next thing that 1 remember was that we got a Ranger's report from Ranger McDonald, the junior Ranger there in Canterbury, and he reported favourably on what the Board had decided to do and substantiated our decision. Then, as far as I remember, Mr. Holton waited upon the Commissioner and seemed considerably put about because this land was to be taken from him. He came to see me, and I pointed out to him that there was nothing personal in the matter either one way or the other. I may state that Mr. Holton and I have always been good friends, and Mr. Rentoul also. We are all good friends, and well acquainted with one another. There has been nothing personal in the matter, as far as I know. I was simply doing what 1 thought to be my duty as a member of the Board in endeavouring to get this section thrown open. Mr. Holton seemed to think because he had held the section for all these years that he had some prior right and should not be disturbed. However, I, as far as I could, disabused his mind of that, and showed him that under the conditions of his lease he could not expect to hold it when it was wanted for closer settlement. Then when the year