COAL LEASE IN THE OHURA

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1932, Page 12

COAL LEASE IN THE OHURA

REFUSAL BY COMMISSIONER

APPLICATION TO SUPREME COURT,

JUDGE RESERVES HIS DECISION.

Judgment was reserved by Mr. Justice Blair in the Supremo Court at New Plymouth vesterday on an application by Thomas Moynihan, Palmerston North, for a coal lease in the Ohura district and an appeal against the refusal of the Commissioner of Crown Lands, as warden, to grant a lease. Moynihan was represented by counsel. The Crown Solicitor said he was instructed by the Commissioner to offer the Court any assistance it might require in determining |he matter. At the last session at New Plymouth His Honour had remitted the matter to the Commissioner on the ground that he had not dealt with the application properly in accordance with the terms of the Act.

In recalling the details of the application yesterday His Honour said there had been no objections to the application but the Commissioner, it appeared, had informed Moynihan that he could not get the lease as the Minister would not give his consent. His Honour considered the Commissioner should not have taken that aspect into consideration. Ho took it the Commissioner had taken up his attitude out of kindness, saying to Moynihan, in effect, “What is the good of me giving you a lease when the Minister will not grant it?” His Honour suggested the Commissioner should have dealt with the application subject to the consent later of the Minister. . . ' Counsel for Moynihan said be would proceed with the application as though it had never been heard by the Commissionei. NO OBJECTION RAISED. Alan J. McLcavey, Palmerston North, said that on behalf of Moynihan he filed with the Commissioner of CroWn Lands, New Plymouth, on July 14, 1930, an application for a coal lease. He paid all fees required under the Act. The Commissioner appointed August 11, 1930, as tile date for the hearing of the application. No notice of any objection was received, though the application was advertised in the district. On August 11 witness appeared before the Commissioner in support of the application. The Commissioner said he had received an application from the inspector of mines to adjourn the hearing as the inspector had not had an opportunity of inspecting the property. However, at witnesses’ request the Commissioner agreed to take witness’ evidence and to receive a report from the inspector later. Witness informed the Commissioner that the applicant proposed to win the coal and convey it to Ohura. The system of hydraulic mining was explained, also the erection of a flue from the coal face to the railway siding at Ohura. All the capital necessary (£30,000) for the erection of the plant was available. Witness asked that the royalty under the lease should be 6d a ton, and pointed out that most of the Waikato mines paid that sum. He applied for a reduction of 5 per cent, from the royalty, that being the estimated water content of the coal. On the 1174 acres of the lease it was estimated 20,000,000 tons of coal was available;'of this 400,000 tons was very readily and easily available on 60 acres. He believed that there was no other mine in the district that had coal so easily available. He understood it would be possible to produce coal ou the railway at Ohura at about 2s a ton; this would be much cheaper than any other mind in the Ohura or the Waikato. His client had arranged that if this lease were granted another lease in the district would be given up, so that the number of leases would not be increased. Witness suggested that in addition to the advantage of cheap coal, the freights available to the Stratford-Okahukura railway would be of benefit; also royalties to the Government. The mine would be worked under the cooperative system of mining, by which' there was far less risk of strikes. The average amount of coal won per man working co-operative-ly was higher than under the other systeim The Grown tenant of the land, who had abandoned the property, was quite willing for the lease to be granted.

ENGINEER’S EVIDENCE. .Thomas D. McLean, licensed surveyor, civil engineer and a mining engineer in New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Alaska, said he had not seen the locality, but believed from a description it was suitable for hydraulic mining. There was a fall of 70 feet in a mile in the river above the mine. He did not know the fall of the river after leaving the mine, but he understood the river moved, deposits of gravel, indicating a considerable velocity. If a river had a velocity of over two miles- an hour deposits ot silt would not be left. They might be deposited where the velocity was under two miles per hour, but they would be swept out in floods. No river had a uniform velocity over the whole course. Thomas Moynihan, coal merchant, Palmerston North, also gave evidence. The Crown Solicitor pointed out that the position of the Commissioner of Crown Lands in the matter was m -t unsatisfactory in that he was forced to be the respondent without having any of the corresponding advantages. A great deal had been said about the Commissioner referring the application to 'the Minister. Counsel said he desired to make it clear that that was only one factor in the matter. It could be established as a departmental practice—however erroneous it might be —that matters of this kind were referred to. the Minister, but the attitude of the Minis 1 ter was only one factor. Another factor was the inspector's report, which was required to be prepared upon an application being made and before it could be granted. In a memorandum the Commissioner had now placed before the Court the evidence on which he had acted in refusing the application.