CROWN LAND GRAVEL RIGHTS

Taranaki Daily News, 16 May 1930, Page 9

CROWN LAND GRAVEL RIGHTS

COUNTY COUNCILS QUARREL. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Palmerston N., Last Night. A case of importance to county councils and other local bodies came before the Supreme Court to-day when' the' Chief Justice was asked to decide whether a local body, the Pahiatua County Council, had the last say as to whether gravel could be removed from the bed of a river where it ran through land owned by the Crown. The bed of the Makuri River where it flows through the Makuri township is vested in the Crown but it is wholly inside the Pahiatua county. Outside the township the river bed is vested in private riparian owners. Tho Akitio county is five miles away at the nearest point and has a very limited supply of gravel for roads. The Pahiatua council has been taking gravel from the river at the township for many years without any license from the Crown and two or three years ago the Akitio council commenced to do the same thing. The Pahiatua council; objected and even took for its own use gravel in a dump the Akitio workmen had taken from the stream. In 1927 an agreement was reached by which Pahiatua was to supply Akitio with a certain quantity of metal, but nothing was done. Akitio again commenced to visit the river-bed. It was then the Pahiatua council secured an ex parte injunction wiiich the Akitio County Council tried to have rescinded. Mr. Justice Ostler, however, left the matter as it stood pending an inquiry into the question of the rights of the Crown as owner.

The Crown subsequently gave the Akitio council a right under license to take gravel. The question before the Court to-day was whether the Pahiatm? council could still prevent the Akitio council from taking gravel in spite of the license issued by the Crown. The judge stated the matter was of such importance that, he .would take time to consider it. He thought he would consult with Mr. Justice Ostler first on the question of whether the Crown should be joined in the case. Maybe the 'simplest way would have been to take the whole question before the Court of Appeal. Counsel pointed out that the Akitio council did not desire to embark upon more litigation than was necessary and if it could obtain what it wanted through the present action an appeal would not be necessary. The matter might be of general importance to others but the Akitio council was concerned only with obtaining gravel. The judge said he agreed with the comment by Mr. Justice Ostler in his judgment that it was a pity the county councils concerned could not have reached an agreement in an endeavour to conserve the ratepayers’ money. He also wondered why the County Councils’ Association had not taken up the question.