TIMBER RIGHTS.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 July 1925, Page 1

TIMBER RIGHTS.

.MAGISTRATE'S COURT CASE. GREYMOI'TH, July 14. At the Alagistrate's Court yesterday held,. Mr W. Aleldrum, S.AL, William Theodore Morpeth. Commissioner of Crown hands, Westland, proceeded again.-u Thoma- 1 harper and Eric Hales, bush workers, of Stillwater, alleging that on December 18th., 1921. at Stillwater, they removed silver pine timber. to the value of £ll2 10s. from certain Crown lands. Air K. A. Kitehingham appeared for informant, and ATr W. McCarthy for tho defence.

William Theodore .Morpeth stated that the land was Crown property, subject to a lease hold by Patrick Dwyer. Being in arrears with his rent. Dwyer applied to have lii.s lease transferred to Thomas Harper, one oT the defendant ts. When the matter came before the Land Board it was decided to recommend the .Minister to wipe oil' the arrears in rent, and that the application for transfer he refused. 'The Land Board in November decreed that the lease he forfeited at the special request of the lessee. It was therefore considered that the land reverted to lhe Grown. On March 17 last, the Minister’s consent was given.

Kor the defence ’Thomas Harper said Dwyer had applied for a cancel* hition of his license. He interviewed Dwyer regarding a transfer of the liccnse. and matters were satisfactorily arranged. Wit ness and Hales had hoen in partnership for three years. On April Bth.. witness received a claim for royalty from the Lauds Department, lie disputed the claim fur poles. Other men had pegged off the ‘‘polo, hush" and witness and his partner could not get any. All they took off the land was pole timber. Witness later informed Mr Fleming, the Crown Lands Ranger ai Hokitika, that he and his partner were quite prepared to pay royalty on the timber they cut. The royalty had been paid by Hales. Evidence was given at considerable length.

In summing up, the .Magistrate said that defendants should not have ent the timber until the transfer was ratified, but apparently they thought there would be no difficulty in Ihe matter, lie agreed with counsel ihat Dwyer’s lease was still in existence. That being so, the Crown had no claim, although the defendants bail no right to cut the timber until the transfer of the lease was granted. He would record a conviction against the defendants, but the penalty would he merely nominal as the defendants believed they were acting within their rights. A line of Cl, with costs amounting to £ I (is was imposed. Security for appeal was fixed at £2O.