TIMBER ROYALTY DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 191, 14 August 1922, Page 6

TIMBER ROYALTY DISPUTE.

JXTKSMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. Decision was given this morning by Mr. J. __ Wilson, S.M., in a case arising out of a dispute regarding a timber cutting contract. Patrick Keleher and Kdmond Keleher, of Papakura (Mr. S. Mays), sued George Edwin Fausett (Mr. E. Inder) to recover £126 9/, alleged to be due as royalty on timber. A counterclaim was entered for £200 for loss . alleged to have been sustained owing to milling operations being stopped. His Worship said a preliminary question to be decided was whether under the I agreement there was any obligation on, the plaintiff to obtain any consent. The defendant's contention was that plain-1 tiffs were the vendors of the timber, and ; that there was an implied covenant on j their part to get the consent referred: tc. Mr. Wilson said that was not thej construction he placed upon the agreement. The owners of the timber were' Dunsmuir and Hughes. It was they who! were desirous of selling the timber and th?y requested plaintiff to join with them in doing so. His Worship con-1 sidered if defendant had any right to' benefit, he had lost it by taking the j covenant of Dunsmuir and Hughes only.! The parties made an agreement, and the \ defendant elected which party should be responsible for certain things to be done j under that agreement. "I do not think.'', added his Worship, '"the defendant can ? now contend that the party excluded - from the express covenant is liable to 3 perform it. In my opinion the defendant has no ground for action against trie, j plaintiffs'' Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. £129 19/, with costs, and on the counter-claim he was nonsuited with costs to the plaintiffs, j