MOUNTAIN HUT

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIX, Issue 20028, 8 February 1935, Page 11

MOUNTAIN HUT

DISPUTE CONCERNING RIGHTS SUPREME COURT ACTION A motion lor declarations (1) that plaintiff was entitled to a sub-lease of the De La Beche Memorial Refuge (2) that a prior agreement was binding on defendant and (3) that plaintiff was entitled at all times to access to the hut, was sought from His Houour Mr Justice Johnston in the Timaru Supreme Court yesterday by the New Zealand Alpine Club who proceeded against the Mount Cook Tourist Company of New Zealand Limited. Mr S. A. Wiren of Wellington appeared for plaintiff, the Company being represented by Mr L. E. Finch. Mr Wiren, in opening the case, said that the action was founded under Rule 297 on admissions made by the defendant company, the subject matter being a hut erected along the Tasman Glacier in 1931. In the preceding year a party perished in a thunderstorm and the New Zealand Alpine Club collected funds by public subscription, from members of the club and from friends of those who lost their lives in the tragedy and the Club erected the hut on Crown land controlled by the Tourist Department and leased to the company. Before the erection of the building an agreement was entered into. Trouble arose in 1934 when the existence of an agreement was denied and, after considerable correspondence, the matter remained unsettled. There were three declarations asked for in the statement of claim, but in the meantime plaintiff did not propose to ask for the declaration entitling it to a sub-lease of the refuge. The statement of defence admitted most of the clauses in the statement of claim. The question of costs, however, entered the matter and counsel contended that plaintiff was entitled to these. Mr Finch said that the action was a motion for judgment, and he considered that the plaintiff had no call or right to any action, A decision was desired as to whether the action should have been brought, and whether any costs should be allowed. Mr Harper, president of the Alpine Club, had made an affadavit regarding conferences with the company, and this would be denied by Mr R. L. Wigley. It was impossible for the defence to file affadavits in answer and for counsel to do justice to his client. Soon after the hut was erected disputes arose. The company claimed that some of the conditions set out. had been broken by the Club. His Honour said that it was obvious that there had been a misunderstanding about the matter, and he suggested that a settlement might be reached if counsel conferred. This course was agreed to and the Court adjourned until the afternoon. Later it was announced that an amicable settlement had been arrived at.