RAFTING ON THE WANGANUI RIVER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIII, Issue 13096, 8 February 1906, Page 6

RAFTING ON THE WANGANUI RIVER.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

A decision" of considerable importance to saw millers and others was given recently by Dr. A. McArthur, the Wellington stipendiary magistrate, in a case in which the Commissioner of Crown Lands for Wellington proceeded against the Puketapu Sawnulling Company, Limited, for having on November 14, 1905, and. until November 18, 1905, without being the holder of a license under the Timber Floating Act, 1884, caused to be rafted down the Wanganui River a large quantity of timber. It was admitted that the defendant company did not hold any license under the pro- j visions of the statute, aad that it did as charged cause to be rafted a quantity of i timber on the dates mentioned. It was ad- ] mitted by the prosecution that the Go- j vernor bad not notified the Wanganui River j under the provisions of section 2 of the .statute, but it was contended that the j statute was general, and . meant what it stated in clear terms. It was also contended that the statute was a necessary one, and that the Wanganui River was pre- , eminently one for which provisions of the kind stated in the statute were essential. The river was a winding one, and possessed great scenic attributes. It was visited by i a large number of tourists, and had a large steamer traffic. It was further alleged that promiscuous rafting would be attended with the greatest danger, both to the steamer i traffic and the protective works which had been erected at great cost. Some evidence was given by the defence as to certain facts. The company had a mill close to the river, and had sent down trial rafts. The result iof the rafting, it was stated, was that i timber would be delivered in Wanganui 6s or \7s cheaper per 100 ft than by vail. The : rafts were constructed in the shape of a boat, and were tinder the control of men !in charge. There was also a pilot,canoe. The rafts were lifted with rowlocks and oars, and with a rowlock and oar at the stern. I The chairman of the company stated that it j would be practically impossible to raft during the summer months, when the tourist j traffic was on, and that it was only in- | tended to raft from May to December. j Counsel for the defence contended that the j company was only exercising its common | law rights, and was, therefore, not liable. ' After quoting a number of cases, His Wor- ! ship went on to say that counsel for the j prosecution, in reply, said it was a* neat j question as to whether the common law rights applied tc New Zealand, but it was not necessary jor His Worship to answer that question. In the construction of the statutes certain rules of legislative policy, as well as the recognised canons oi interpretation, should be kept in view. One of these rules which was widely applicable was that where the common law and the statute differed the common law gave place to the statute. His Worship, in conclusion, stated that the information should be sustained, and a conviction be entered. The defendant would be fined £1, with £3 14s I costs, on each of two informations. Mr. Treadwell, for the defence, asked leave to appeal. A similar fine was imposed in the cases in which the Taumaranui Sawmilling Compaaiy, Limited, Robert Allan, of Taumaranui, Ellis and Burnand, Limited, Elijah Charlton Hedditch and Chas. Arthur Hedditch, of Wanganui, and Warahi te Whiu were also charged.