RAYNER SUES FOR SUM FROM CROWN.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19034, 1 April 1930, Page 9

RAYNER SUES FOR SUM FROM CROWN.

APPEAL COURT HEARS ARGUMENT ON FACTS.

Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 1. A further phase of the case Raynef versus the Crown came before the Court of Appeal to-day, when the Court heard argument on questions of law arising out of facts and to be deter mined before trial. Frederick John Raynfcr, of Auckland, dental surgeon, in January, 1929, filed a petition of right under the Crown Suits Act against the Crown, alleging that, by written agreement dated October 11, 1928, made with the Commissioner of State Forests, he agreed to give, and the Commissioner, acting on behalf of the Crown, agreed to take, an option to purchase forests of timber on certain freehold and leasehold lands i containing approximately 5140 acres, known as Tauri-Tutukau forests, at a consideration of £35,000 for an option, and, in the event of the option being exercised, the price of the timber to be ascertained and paid in a manner provided in the agreement, credit being given for the consideration paid for the option. He further alleged that the sum of £35,000 was payable on October 11, 1928, but had not yet been paid. Ray-ner asked right be done ! in the matter. The Solicitor-General in turn filed a plea to this petition, denying the existence of any valid agreement and alleging that, at the time of the negotiations between the suppliant and the Commissioner, the former’s title to the lands in question was not in order; and that, even if it were proved that the agreement as alleged had been entered into, it was beyond the authority of the Commissioner and therefore not binding on the Crown. The case was thereupon set down for trial; but Mr Justice Ostler made an order for argument before the Court of Appeal of certain questions of law arisr ing out of facts. These questions, as follow, are being argued to-day:— (1) Was the agreement referred to in the petition ultra vires on the part of the Commissioner of State Forests? (2) Did the fact of the land being subject to part XIII of the Land Act, 1924, and section 74 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1913, or the fact that suppliant was not the registered proprietor of the whole of the land, but held a portion under option to purchase, entitle the Commissioner to decline to be bound by r the agreement? For the suppliant, Mr A. Gray, K.C., and Mr H. V. James, and for the Crown, Mr A. Fair, K.C. (Solicitor-Gen-eral) and Mr, A. E. Currie, are appearing. On the Bench are Justices Herdman, Reed, Adams, Ostler and Smith.