TIMBER ROYALTIES CASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19809, 2 December 1927, Page 13

TIMBER ROYALTIES CASE.

DISPUTE FROM RQTORUA. PROCEEDINGS AT HAMILTON. [BJT TELEGRAPH. OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Thursday. A dispute regarding the appropriation of timber royalties in connection with an area of timber land in the Rotorua district came before Mr. Justice Herdman in the Hamilton Supremo Court yesterday. The plaintiffs were Kirikoro Wi Maihi and Ncti Kirikoro, both native women ot Tokaanu (Mr. H. D. C. Adams), and the defendants were David Gardner, of Hukopapa, sawmiller, as administrator of the estate of Hector Edward Gardner, deceased (Mr. W. 1\ Gray), and Albert Lightheart, of Rotorua, Roman Catholic priest (Mr. M. H. Hampson).

The plaintiffs, in their statement of claim, set out that in 1908 they granted a lease of certain native land with timbercutting rights to Hector Edward Gardner, and that the defendant, David Gardner, was now the lessee under that lease and had failed to comply with the provisions of the lease as to providing full accounts of timber cut and the royalties payable. The claim also stated that by a document dated February 27, 1927, plaintiffs purported to assign to the defendant Lightheart the rent and royalties payaide to them under the lease, but that by virtue of the provisions of the Native Land Act, 1909, such purported assignment was invalid. Tho plaintiffs therefore claimed as against the defendant Gardner that accounts be taken by the registrar as to the royalties payable under the lease and judgment for the amount found to be due; and as against the defendant Lightheart the plaintiffs sought a declaration of the Court that the purported assignment of royalties was null and void.

The defendant Gardner, in his statement of defence, denied that he had failed to account for royalties. He admitted thero was a certain sum due, which he was willing to pay over to the plaintiffs or to Lightheart according to the judgment of the Court, on the validity of the assignment. When the case was called, Mr. Flampson. for the defendant Lightheart, admitted that the assignment in favour of his client was invalid. His Honor accordingly made a declaration to that effect and reserved the question of costs. On the application of Mr. Adams, with the consent of Mr. Gray, the case was then adjourned to December 7, as counsel stated there was now a possibility of a settlement" being arranged between plaintiffs and defendant Gardner regarding the amount of royalties payable.