£46-000 DAMAGES CLAIMED.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 104, 1 May 1920, Page 13

£46-000 DAMAGES CLAIMED.

JUDGMENT rOK DBTETJBANT. IN TIMBER-CUTTING DISPUTE. Mr. Justice .Sim delivered judgment j-csterday on certain questions in the, civil action in which the Waimiha Stnvmilling Co., Ltd., claimed £40,1100 damages against Thomas G. C. llowr, farmer, of Waimiha, for t!,e alleged wrongful rescission of a. timber-cutting agreement, and for relief from forfeiture of the latter. The case has been before the Supremo Court sinre last December, and over a week has been spent in hearing it. One question—whether the agreement is In law a Use or a contract for the sale o£ poods (i.e., the timber) —was referred by the Supreme Court some month* ago to the Court of Appeal, which lias not yet delivered its finding. The importance of this question lies iv the argument submitted by the defence, that agreement, being subject to the Pale of Coods Act. allowed the plaintiff no relief against forfeiture, such as might be sought in the ease of a lease. The evidence showed Hint the' agreement, was made in November, 1016, the plaintiiV c.mipany undertaking to cut a hlock of about 3UOO acres of timber near Ongarui , within a period of 17 years, subject to an crtiMieion of feu.,- years a( double royalty. Hie defendant Howe havi ing the right to farm illi> land as it was cleared. II was stated that Howe reentered upon the hind in .July last, and determined the agreement. l-'or the defence it. vviii aßi'fioil Unit (lie company had failed to get out the timber at the spreitieil rate of 4'OO.OOOft super a month —an important rfiiestioii bocnuw the defendant wanted lo.lV.rm the land—and in othrr respects had failed to fulfil the terms of tho agreement. The company in turn asserted that Howe had failed to carry out one of his duties under agreement, and had determined the latter while :ui arbitration was pending. The company also alleged that there were, in fact, Jio breaches on its part of the agreement, and in pnrticulas that the mill plant it set. up was capable of handling 40(1,000 feet of timber a month (which How.- denied). His Honor, after reviewing the evidence, found against the company in regard to all the points last mentioned, and gave judgment for lite defendant on the claim fur damages. The other branch of the case—relief from forfeiture—was held over for consideration after the Court of Appeal had decided the question submitted to it. . All questions of costs were reserved. Mr. .T. K. Reed. X.C.. and Mr. \\". D. Anderson appeared for the plaintiff company, and Dr. IF. D. Tiamford for the defence.