NATIVE TIMBER

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22596, 8 December 1936, Page 12

NATIVE TIMBER

MILLING AT TE WHAITI

MAORI OWNERS' CLAIM DESTRUCTION ALLEGED AN INJUNCTION SOUGHT The interpretation of a deed of covenant entered into between a group of .Maoris at Te Whaiti and n European sawmiller was sought from Mr. Justice Cnllan in an action brought before him in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs in two separate actions, which it was agreed to hear together, were Harehare Hare, Haare Haree If. Toroa Hare, Tahora Haare, Tutakiwa Haare and Tiki Paaka, of 'Je A\ haiti (Mr. Richmond) and the detendant Adam Maclarn, of Te Whaiti. sawmiller (Mr. l'inlay and .Mr. H. J. Butler).

Plaintiffs are the owners of 7D acres at Minginui bearing valuable totara, matai and riinu timber trees, and on July 7, 1935, they appointed defendant by deed of covenant their agent for felling, cutting and milling the timber on the land and disposing of it. The document was not submitted to the Waiarihi District Native Land Court for approval, and the plaintiffs claimed that therefore it was void and unenforceable.

They alleged that the defendant had wrongfully cut and destroyed much valuable timber and had refused to refrain from doing so. They asked for au injunction restraining him from entering upon the land, for damages for destruction of the trees and £2OO damages for injury done to the land, and for accounts to be taken between them. Delendant's Contention Defendant claimed that tho plaintiffs had acted on the advice of their own solicitors, and that the deed lie had prepared had been translated into Maori and explained to the plaintiffs. Tho deed gave him legal right to do everything he had done. He had established a sawmill and equipment at a cost/ of over £2500. Mr. Richmond said the substantial question was whether the document was, as it said it was, an agreement appointing the defendant agent for tho plaintiffs or whether it was in truth a sale of standing timber and therefore an alienation which had 110 effect until approved by tho Native Land Court. The question of law involved was a very grave one for tho Maori people. It an agreement in that form avoided the necessity for approval by the Native Land Court then the provision protecting the Maoris from improvident bargains was practically useless.

The question was whether in framing the deed the draftsman had enabled a coach and horses to be driven through the Native Laud Act, said Mr. Richmond. It' the deed was an alienation it was void. Allegation ol Waste An expert would value the total quantity of timber on Paaka's property that had been wasted and destroyed by defendant at £1339, continued Mr. Richmond, and would say it was the most shocking case of waste ami destruction that he had ever seen. Paaka had received only £2OO. The plaintiff. Tiki Paaka, a licensed interpreter for 30 years, said lie had consented to sell this timber to Maclarn. and had had a deed drawn up to that effect. To Mr. Finlay, witness said that Maclarn had offered him £3OO to stand aside from partnership and allow Maclarn to mill the bush. After a brief adjournment Mr. Finlay reported that counsel had agreed to" call only the evidence of a Government forestry expert and then to argue the question of the interpretation of the deed. An Expert's Report Philip Athol Reveirs, Government forest ranger, with 13 years' experience, put in a report ho had made on the bush in question. This stated that only the best totara trees had been sought, and these had been selected in a most irregular fashion, resulting in the destruction, of many good unliable trees. He described much "wanton waste." It was the worst example of careless and uneconomical working he had seen. There had been similar waste at the mill. Both the areas concerned had particularly good bush averaging about 30.000 feet to the acre. Mr. Richmond submitted that the deed was wanting in the first essential of a contract of agencv. Mr. Fin lay argued that under the deed the defendant acquired no property right in anything. His Honor in reserving his decision said that all the Court was asked to do at that stage was to say whether the agreement was void or not. Anything else in issue would bo reserved for further consideration.