SOUTHLAND "COAL STEAL.”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume III, Issue 73, 10 March 1913, Page 3

SOUTHLAND "COAL STEAL.”

JL'Di.IE WILLIAMS

r« u. text • -f jufh

Invereargil!. Man-j 9,

Ills iloioiir Sir Jo.ihiia V. illinms. i--i da- . <f ;>.t rn< j; -i the case of Brighton v. uui Co:n:;il -

si- r t row.i Land-. ;..i <<■ 1 ' ing summons under the Deciarat. Juduo .-at, A ;. Ir. vl.iili it v..s.jnght t<« d-t> r:u:ne th.- inf -.:..iia it rt.e V.i j > f 1. — i . 31 of th'- Land .*un ii'urr.., Ac". 1912, lie L-nd > < -■.’i;-r.-"d lit the lease." Mr. V». A. Mi.a* appear. -I • ~. j-lainriff. v.Lih- Mr. W. M.-Aii-- . (who Lal at th-- hea.-iig app.au. / with tn- Ho.i. A. L. II«■:lit;-.*.;. At-t-jriu;. --i.-rali repre.-o;;:. <t r: > (.'oiauta-siouer of (. :ovn La.ni- aro t-.o M.ni-ter <-f L.P.da. H:- Honour ■> judgment t.’.i follows:— Tiie plaintiff is the leat'a ui two leases in perpetuity granted und;\section 121 of the Land Act. W#2. That section is as follows : When ant mineral, oil. g-is. in'tab or tamable s-t-,a-- 1. been or shall be discovered o.i or adjacent to any Crown land. v. h - ti.er open for selection or not. or on any Crown land heretoh re served for coal mining, or. in case wh n re tli- pie-.-uce of such mineral. mineral oil. gas. meta! ... valuable stone is piobablc. tl.e Governor-in-Ccuncil may withdraw such land from sale, and may thereafter ileal with such lard Io special t guia.icns. but al-iai subject as follows : - (1) The surface of the la- d nay. be lensed in perpetuity mid. r pat. 111. t,r under part VI. of the Act. (2) No right to any mineral, mineral oil. gas. metal of valuable stone under the surface shall • >»-.- tain to the le<s”e. (3) A io'.mar.: shall be inserted in every lease or license especially excepting such minerals, metals or valuable stone from til claim or right of the lessee or licensee, and limiting such right to the surface soil of the land comprised in his lease or lit ense, ami reserving .a right of ingress, egress ami regress to all persons lawfully engaged in working any such mipe.als, mineral oils, gases, metals c. stone.

A eovenant to the effect of the covenant in sub-section 3 was endorsed on the leases. The leases are for £99 years. At the time the leases were executed there was no statute giving the lessees a right to purchase the fee simple. The rigid of purchase was first given by section 20 of the Act of 1907, which was re-enacted as section 177 of the Consolidating Land Act of 1908. That section was. repealed by section 40 ci the Land Laws Amendment Act 1912. and the right of purchase which the plaintiff claims to exercise was given by section 30 and the following sections of the Act of 1912. Section 31, sub-section ’ of the Act c; 1912 is as follows :— The owner of a lease in perpetuity shall have a right at ary time hereafter during the existence of the lease to purchase the fee simple of the land comprised in the lease at a price ascertained and determined in the manner pro vided by this part of this Act. Section 32 provides that the price is to be computed as follows: — (a) The difference between r rental at five per centum per annum on the original Capital value shall be treated as having been payable by the purchaser to the Crown in each year from the date of the lease, and accordingly a sum equal to one-half of such ditiercnce shall be deemed to have become due by the purchaser to th? Crown on each half-yearly day appointed by the lease for the payment of rent from the date of the lease to the date of the delivery ot the notice and to have remained unpaid. <b) Upon each such sum intcres. shall be computed at the rate cJ' four per centum per annum com-; pounded with half-yearly rests [ from the date when sueli sum is; treated as having become due un-! til the date of the delivery of the i r.et ice. ' [ (c) The aggregate of the sum | mentioned in paragraph (a) hereot, and the aggregate of the interestj computed as directed by para-, graph (b) hereof shaHJbe added to the original capital value, and 1:1? total shall be the price. ' What then is the position unde r the : existing legislation apart from sec-1

tion 17“ of the Act of 1905. which the present Act hr.s repealed. and tie ease of Bennie v. Connnissioner <>: Crown Lands (2-' N.Z.L. R.. which was dee.tied upon tne construction of that section ’ The lease was granted under section 121 of the Act of 1592. and must be construed ni

conformity with the terms ot tt section. It was therefore a lease m. the surface only. The lessee has no right to any minerals, and they are expressly excepted from the demise. The right of jHireha.se given to the lessee is the he simple of the ’.and co:npri..ed hi the lea<e. The price t-> be paid is n.i.-; d upon the cap:.a. value u’>on wh'.eh the rent was ass-.s

seii. and that is the capital value <-t the land with the minerals excepted.

If the purchaser is entitled to a con veyanee of tie ■-■•:. w fee s::»;p.e A the land, including the minera.s. :.>■ would be entitled to somethin? v. hic!i was not included :n the lease any which I:" 3 '"- not paid for. .Apart, therefore, from Mvricn and Ben. pie's (•;.•■_ s ction bi i f the Act ot 1912 docs not app' nr to me to give the -<ie the imi.t io purchase more titan the ft e -.n p e « t lire land tie * raised, ti i’.t i <; . the 'and w threat the i>.i se.-aS. mid th- fee simple of the ■mrirra’s -(>;;’ i ••’rsr .'1 the t It w«■.-m tjiwevir. trait toe. •'■ ■■ t • .: of -t: >n ■ ot tr.e A ,- t < i lues was t.- the same effect as -4. -.mi of t’ -- Act of IPf-2. and t’. ;r a- the i’.-n ire \. t li e C ■ jo i t < .ov.n Lan I- 1 a'- ' k i t'-.-.i. tlie w< yo ■'tbo fe ’ -.:u;o' « •’ t e ;;ind mp> tsi. d in the h i-o" .a 'ei • <-a 177 meant u.e whole • f tin l lami rim-a the mm t rals. the v.i ■■■:.< ’-ii.st Ttr.ve the satm.’■ meaning in = * >■’ i< n M of the present, Ac’’. Ti.e m. an . _ < f the words, .however, must depend up »n their eontext. and there was a context in the Act of 1905 which dues not appear t

tu. c T- A’--, i iwc su’.'*x . . ' ■: ■ ; r ' . ’ i 7 r. ;■ -/ r. - f ’ ' : ::: i-.g i »■ exi-tf t- ’-. I. a ■ '. '• !; :i ! ri. 2’- o th? ‘ r f-t.-s r-1 : f ’and comprised in tie1 '■ •’ • ’ < '•! •; C(. / I ' ' : !1 -•- 1 c.r ti e t tit f» p.. > -c tJ-rrc-L A - Il' 1 ■ l.i <a- ’ ' - ?:e / •=■ «’ ‘ r.:> ■■ ■' i-. ;!• ,t :on r a-i in rhe manntr ptovi< : - d tri i >n. and iitc'.;' !<• the '• nice <>f -:i : rMs ;.*b.< r ti • n g-..d or er. r-h'-.I! not inc’rd--* tj.»- if ary impre verne’.t )-l.i' ! -i ■ ;i (i-e hind d -.ring the convnuan?'- : the k-isc. l.y sub.-.'e-:i 2. t n;.r > ‘-r,-i’s in t.. land End to 1 a -.ai:;rd, and the purchaser Lad to rev f;r inept. I' no wr.ndi r tbar th-- (-• ’■ f Ayp- 1 i e’" l! - "the land c.-.;; r. -.st d in the lea ■ ■ io ti.e i :<1 v. h v. •-u i*. i tain - pi.tsa-adv. rl'.l the tent-' may not Id 1.-.w l.e tc :• <-f the .•oihjcc’ matter of ’..Lu nr.' If i; L - I : r:'-r p’a ( -d con-tii.c--tio-i ii pen ■ iit-'O words the ell -'-t v. I. -• n ;-t the

?:•!. i.-. h be ; i • fur the mineral:-, v.'tudd r-.: ! fiitirled to them. Th' 1 minerals, -s the Court < f A (•;.■« :■.! said, were not in law part of the «-übje'.-t matter <.-f what was it;. A? 1 -'i 11- : -. v a-' -•>. i ( <u,i t. I. i txdt r t<> avoid a paiyiatde absurdity, v. i- <• -r; ■■ li-i. -i 1 \ <■, .- ct <;n 2 to put meaning on the wo:ds ".he I:.mi <■;>.e.rn :~i <! :n the lease.” wb.-’t-h v.-> bt-y.-n itl• ir 10-a 1m- aning a- d < ••. <-red -t!::i,g I’iat vas not init . i t !, e l -a-i. it v r.- only I \ :< ii < : o ii , i 2 t!:.--t th:'--mcaning is attributc-d to them, voi tint s’.di-ettln 2 no longi r ex:-.*- tiier- i- r>. rmed t<- extern! the ioy-l and nitur’.! in. ar.lng <f tie wi-rd'. or to 1 o’d that they incit.de any ni-r--- than t- c su’-je- t matter ;,f '.. eat was inc’uded in tin I<-i-e. St ct:on 177 of the Act of ;9U.s Las been wiped c.T the Statute Bock. For the ju rpc-. es < f this ca-e tl.e section m i-e Heated as if it Lad never existed. I’er.nie’s case Las i> o bcuipg iuc:i t! e present, except so far as it shov. s tl at tl.c decision in it was based on siiL-cctLn and that the infcicnre tl.cre'oie is tb-.t had it n< t Leon fi -.- subsccticn 2 the decii-ioii would I -ice been the o‘.h< e v.:y. A case which dec-idea that, if tiie Legislature says that a man has to pay for a thing, the Legislature intended he should get what he paid for is not an authority for the picncsition that the I.egis. ttu;e. Ly another statute, intended the man to get tl.e ‘.ante thing without paying for it. Il was contended that the eight of purchase given by the statute should he i-un-tiaed l-l-tral'y ivi fno.ir of the L.-.ec. I think the true ru’t- of construction is tier other way. The ilgi.t was an act cf g:a;e on the part of the Legislature, and of the C rown as forming part cf the Legislature. In such a case the rule of construction cf Crown grams would, in my cpiijion. apply. That is. that they are vtmstruvd -uoM favourably f tithe Crown. The C rown would net he he'll t> Laie gran’ed anything mme t'-’.a.i the exprts-. i.ords of the gia u t-ovir. and in the event of a doiibc <

< i»n-grnction tl.e Crovui weu'd 1.-re i;.e I-er.ef:!; of the <io:ib ; .. 1 do n > tl-irk. however, that il is neccfsa y to inic-ke this principle in the- pri se..t case.

The answer, therefore, to the first qi:i"-tiun .n ti e -innmoi’.-. i- that i ; ic words "the land coinnri-:ed in the lease’ ’mean the land demised by the 1. •- —-I at is. the lira without J:.,minerals.

T- e answer to the second question i- that the piain-tiff is entitled to a Un-wii gram of tlie kind exclusive > the minera’s.

L’e-s.ts aie ucr asked f:>.- by ti:--Attorncy-Genc rni.