SAWMILLING DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17458, 30 April 1920, Page 7

SAWMILLING DISPUTE.

PLAINTIFF REFUSED DAMAGES.

Judgment was given by Mr. Justice Sim i in the Supreme Court yesterday in an action for damages for alleged unlawful determination of a contract, brought by the Waimiha Sawmilling Company (Mr. Reed and Mr. Anderson) "against Thomas George Cook Howe (Dr. Bamford). The action centred round an agreement between the parties, whereby the plaintiff company purchased milling timber upon certain "freehold land belonging to the defendant in the Auckland land district. After operations covering a period of two years, the »'plaintiff company went into voluntary liquidation in June, 1919, and in the following month the defendant's soiici--or purported to terminate the agreement by a letter to the liquidator, after which ♦he defendant resumed possession of the iand. Both parties alleged breaches of various clauses of the agreement.

His Honor held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to take exception to the nonperformance by the defendant of an undertaking to obtain a right-of-way for the i plaintiffs over Crown lands, which was a | condition precedent to the existence of the I plaintiff's own obligations under the agreement. There was a breach on the plaintiff's part in that the sawmill erected was capable of cutting only 200,000 feet superlog measurement a month, instead of 400.000. On that ground alone, the defendant v.as justified in determining the agreement. There was no proof that the defendant had waived that or any other breach of contract by the plaintiffs, and .accordingly judgment must he for the defendant on the claim for damages. The alternative claim by the plaintiffs fnr re'.'ef against forfeiture was a matter that must stand over until after the Court of Appeal had determined whether the agreement was a lease within the meaning r .L section 94 of the Property Law Act. 1908. Further consideration of the action was therefore adjourned, and all questions of costs reserved.