TIMBER FLOATING.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 226, 21 September 1906, Page 2

TIMBER FLOATING.

CASES AGAINST MILLERS. A COMPANY FINED. The first of a proposed series of prosecutions against alleged breakers of the Timber Floatage Act came before Mr Dyer, S.M., in the Auckland Police Court this morning. Mr Selwyn Mays, of the Crown Solicitor' 9 office, prosecuted. The defendant in the present case was the Kaipara Timber Co. (represented by ]\lr MeVeagh) who pleaded guilty to having floated timber on the Mongonui, Wairoa, and Maungakahia Rivers without ' olding licenses to do so from the Crown l.ands Board. Mr MoVeagh snid the defendant Co. was formed in September, 1904, taking over the assets of Mr Wollesy Allen. Among his assets was a license for floating timber over the rivers named. This license covered a period of three years, from June, 1903, to June, 1906; and it therefore expired last year. The company, however, was under the impression that it was still in operation— an impression which was borne out by the fact that they had recently paid the premiums due for insuring the bondsmen "who had guaranteed them in reference to any damage done by the logs. Mr Mays said other cases (against other companies) would come before the Court next week. All over the Auckland Province the law was being broken, and it was thought desirable to check the practice by a few prosecutions. The Wairoa River was occasionally a source of trouble with sunken logs. Practicalry every company floating logs on the river had at some time allowed logs, to

sink, and the Kaipara Timber Co. was neither better nor worse in that respect than the others. The Crown, however, was put to considerable expense in employing rangers to go to the rivers and streams and identify the logs with a view to proceedings against the offenders. In the present case the expense amounted to £ 15, but it applied to two other companies also, who would appear later before the Court. He had charged the defendant with only one day's offence, but in reality they had been offending ever since last October under a liability of £5 per day, so that they could of course be punished to the extent of a good round sum. He was content, however, to ask for a fine enfficient to cover expenses. The persons comprising the company were men many of whom had been operating timber for some time past, and they were well acquainted with the provisions of the Act.

His Worship imposed a fine of £3 in respect of each river, and costs.