A DEAL IN TIMBER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14093, 22 June 1909, Page 6

A DEAL IN TIMBER.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. DISPUTE BETWEEN SETTLER AND MILLERS. The hearing of an action brought by George Thomas Hyde, of Katikati, settler, against David Goldie and Caehmore Brothers, of Auckland, timber merchants, was commenced at the Supreme Court before Mr- Justice Edwards yesterday. The plaintiff claimed £200 genearal damages, and £700 Special damages, for alleged trespass. Dr. H. Dean Bamford appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. F. E. Baume, K.C., and Mr. R. McVeagh (instructed by Messrs. Nicholson and Gribbin) represented the defendants. The statement of the case, as presented by Dr. Bamford, was that plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendants in October, 1900* for the removal of the kauri .timber on section 3, Block 1, Aongatete Survey District, containing 112 acres 2 roods, the price which the defendants were to pay being Is per 100 superficial feet. Defendants were to have the right to remove the timber within three years, and paid £21 down. In August, 1902, defendants obtained an extension of time in which to work the timber, the sum of £10 being paid to plaintiff in. consideration of such extension. The land was held by the plaintiff from the Crown by virtue of an occupation license with right of purchase. At the beginning of 1908 the plaintiff left for the South, and appointed an agent to look after the property for him. In October, 1908, the defendants started cutting the timber off the land, and were notified by the plaintiff's agent that they had no right to do so; but they replied that Hyde had forfeited his right to the land, and that they had acquired the timber from the Crown. The plaintiff denied that he had forfeited his light to the land, and the timber thereon, his license as a matter of fact never having been interfered with, and he purchased the fee simple in February hist. The defendants, notwithstanding the warning given, continued to cut and remove the timber. Dr- Bamford submitted that the defendants' Tight to cut the timber expired in 1904, and that they could not rely on the fulfilment or non-fulfilment by the plaintiff of his license with the Crown, because the license existed, and had not been interfered with right up to the time that he purchased the freehold. Evidence was then called in support of the claim. Mr. Baume moved for a nonsuit on the following grounds :(1) That the documont, dated October 15, 1900, was a lease of the land, that during the first three years the lease was extended, and that by such extension the term of the lease was extended without any agreement as to duration, and was therefore only determinable by one month's notice in writing, which notice had not been given ; and (2) that the transaction, if regarded as a sale, even without an express license to go upon the land and take advantage .of it, gave power to go on the land and take it; (3) that if it was held that the entry could only have been made within a reasonable lime, the damages could only be for the entry alone and (4) that if the document dated October 15, 1900. was neither a lease nor a license, it must be either a conveyance of sale or a contract for sale under which the property passed to the purchaser. His Honor reserved the points for argument. Mr. Baume, in opening the case for the defence, said that the defendants said they purchased the timber on the plaintiff's land with the right of removal for three years, and that during those three years the period for the removal was extended indefinitely. The further hearing of the rase was adjourned until 10.30 this morning.