Timber Unlawfully Removed From State

Greymouth Evening Star, 1 September 1947, Page 4

Timber Unlawfully Removed From State

“This is another 1 case in'which a miller has. cut over the boundary, of the land granted to'him for milling purposes and it is necessary to emphasise that not only are the boundaries properly cut but proper plans are supplied to the licence holder,” said Mr F. A. Kitchingham, counsel for the ,Conservator of State Forests (Mr R. B. Collett) in the-Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth today. In the information of the conservator, J: C. Malfroy and Co;, Ltd, sawmillers, was charged that on divers dates between April 1 and May 22, 1947, at Loopline road, near Dillmans, it did, without lawiul authority, fell in State Forest No. 20 73 rimu trees, containing 39,000 board feet, valued at ’ £3B ss. Mr W. D. Taylor appeared for the defendant company and entered a plea of guilty. Double Penalty

Continuing his. opening, remarks, Mr Kitchingham said that the department took the view that such trespasses were too frequent and there was really no excuse for them,, in view of the fact that the boundaries were clearly marked. He drew attention to section 43 of the Forest Act, which states that a magistrate may impose a penalty twice the value of the timber, in addition to the fine. “I say that until the double penalty is .imposed millers will • continue - to trespass, as when the hauler and tram - are in - the vicinity there ' ‘ is' a' great temptation to cut,. oyer . the boundaries,” added Mr Kitchingham. “In the. present case I am - not' suggesting that it was a deliberate trespass, but in the normal case the miller may elect to take the chance. Unless the bush is cruised beforehand, it is difficult to make an accurate estimate of the quantity of timber which has been removed.”

Mr Taylor pointed out that the company had been granted cutting rights over lots 1,2 and 3 of the section, but for some reason lot 4 was excluded. If the 73 trees in lot 4 had not been taken they would have been left, probably for all time. He understood that the company had paid royalty on the 73 trees, as they had been included in the normal return to the department and, in his submission, it was not a case for a double penalty.

n reply to a question by the Magistrate, Mr A. A. McLachlan, Mr Kitchingham said his file was not definite on the point as to whether the royalty had actually been paid. He submitted that the court must take it that lot 4 had been sold and that the timber had not been paid for. Payment of Royalty Mr Taylor said it was his impression that the company had paid the royalty on the 73 trees. If not, he would undertake to see that it was paid. Mr McLachlan said he was still on the look-out for a case of deliberate trespass to be presented and he would certainly then impose a double penalty. Until evidence of deliberate trespass was presented, however, he must take it as not being deliberate.

The defendant company was fined £lO and ordered to pay £2 2s solicitor’s fee and 10s court costs. It was left to counsel to ascertain how much of the £3B/5/- royalty and cruising expenses was still to be paid and to arrange accordingly.