RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume II, Issue 81, 24 July 1852, Page 10

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT, LYTTELTON.

25*/t July. (15e,ure the Resident Magistrate, and Messrs. Hamilton*, Fitton, and Cookson.)

Godley v. Graham.—This was an action brought by M>-. Godley, as Aarent for the Canterbury Ass. c ation, against W. Graham to recover £12 105.., value of timber unlawfully removed by defendant, his sons, and labourers, at sundry times, since the 21st February, from land piaced at the sole disposal of the Association. Mr. Godley being sworn, having first referred to rue 'j;h and 10j.li clauses of the Canterbury Adoration's Lauds Act, Vie. 14 and 15, Cap.

84, stated, —I granted a licence for cutting timber to the defendant, from the 2lst January to the 21st February. The licence gives no power to carry away, and is so far defective ; but I contend that it gives no power to remove after its expiration. I seek to recover £12 10s. the amount of monthly licenses for five men employed in removing the timber, which, as far as the Association is concerned, is the value of the timber.

Witnesses were examined who proved that defendant had employed his sons and labourers in removing timber at various times during the last five months, from the Association's Bush, to be used in fencing in Mr,. Alport's land.

W. Graham being sworn, said, —I deny the justice of Mr. Godley's claim for £12 10s. I have occasionally employed my sons and labourers in removing timber from the bush, but, on my oath, I declare that I have not cut or removed timber to the value of £12 10s. on the Association's land without license. When I state this, I understand by the license that I may remove timber after having cut it when I like.

The Bench decided that the Association are losers by the value of each License that should have been taken out by Mr. Graham—that is, one for each person employed in cutting at any time during one month. That the right to remove timber is clearly incidental to the power to cut, granted by the License ; but must necessarily cease with the expiration of, the License. That the prevailing impression in the Settlement that a holder of a License may during the time for which it is granted cut down all he can, and cut up and remove it at any time afterwards, is contrary to law. In awarding damages in Mr. Graham's case, the Bench decided that, although in the first instance he was liable to pay the full value of the Licenses he ought to have taken out for each person employed by him, yet, considering that this question had so long remained unmooted, and the impression above-mentioned had become so general, they would not have enforced higher damages than £5, —even had Mr. Godley been unwilling to give up his full claim. He, however, in this instance, asked only for the Licenses due for 3 months by three persons, or £4 10s., that being pretty nearly the value of the actual advantage which Mr. Graham had derived from cutting the timber by his not paying for Licenses.

Judgment for plaintiff for £4 10s. Od. and costs.