ONEKAKA RON

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24697, 28 August 1941, Page 9

ONEKAKA RON

MINING PRIVILEGES PROCEEDINGS FOR FORFEITURE (PA.) WELLINGTON. Aug. 27. ■The case in which the Crown ids proceeding lor the forfeiture of mining privileges at Onekaka against the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company, Golden Bay Proprietary, Ltd., and Pacific Steel. Ltd., was continued in the Warden's Court in Wellington to-day before Mr T. E. Maunsell, S.M. In reply to Mr P. B, Cooke (for the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company. ‘Ltd-), Mr G. A. Pascoe said that jn the report he made to his Minister after his return from England in 1937 there was .reference to the question of the State’s establishing the industry. rS'Me expressed the opinion m the report : i that only the State could establish it suceenfully.. - He recommended that the Government should take control of the iron ore areas. The Government, witness stated, knew what was being done and what was! not being done at the works, and on the privileges' down to the passing of the Act. Estimates of Ore Reserves'-.: • '■- . To. Mr C, H. Weston, who Is apg faring for the Golden Bay Propriety, Ltd., witness said the manufacture of-steel was essential to the success of the industry. The estimate of Dr Bell, former Government geologist, was 60,000.000 tons of ore reserves.: Messrs Brasserts, Ltd.. > placed the figure l at 102.000,000, and the present, departmental estimate was about 10,000.000 tons. Messrs Brasserts, Ltdin two reports, regarded Onekaka as a Souhd industrial development The 1939 report was sufficiently satisfactory .for the Government to sign a contract with Messrs Brasserts, Ltd. - > More than Government “ approval ” was essential to the success of any/ iron and steel industry at Onekaka, said the witness in reply to Mr C. R. Fell; who appeared with Mr H. H Cornish for the Crown. Even without financial aid it was necessary- that the > domestic market should be reserved for thcise products which the industry would manufacture, Messrs Brasserts, ■' Ltd., were instructed by cablegram to - undertake the work on behalf of the Government immediately the Act was ' passed. - '■'.:■'■ ■!':- Motion for Non-suit -Mr-Cooke, addressing the court on i behalf of the Onekaka Iron and Steel Company, Ltd., moved for a non-suit oh the following grounds:—(l) That as to eight of the privileges there can be no forfeiture because no evidence at air has been offered of non-use of any - of them for the statutory period; (2) that under the agreement of September 1 18,1931, between the Crown and the ‘ : ' receivers, the receivers were to be agents for the Crown and therefore . everything the receivers did or omitted In terms of the agreement was done or omitted on behalf of the Crown. Sincev by section 13 (B) of the 1938 . Act tbte court cannot take into , consideratioh anything done of omitted by the Crown, it is submitted that the acts and omissions of the receivers being under the 1931 agreement on behalf of the Crown mutt be ignored; v (3) that, of the particulars of default alleged bytho'Crown the second is applicable only to the claims and there0. fore not to the Onekaka privileges end the third allegation of abandonment % is not a ground for forfeiture. iMr Cooke’s, address lasted for upt ' wards of three hours and a-half, and $: will be resumed when the hearing is continued to-morrow.