SALE OF FORESTS TO STATE ALLEGED

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19036, 3 April 1930, Page 9

SALE OF FORESTS TO STATE ALLEGED

HEARING OF CLAIM FOR PAYMENT IS CONTINUED. Per Press Association. WELLINGTON, April 3. In the Appeal Court case, Rayner v. the Crown, Mr Gray, for Rayner, said he did not want the Court to lose sight of the fact that the money agreed to be paid was primarily for the option and later to be credited as part of the purchase money. With regard to the contention of the Crown that the agreement to purchase was not authorised by the Forests Act, 1921-22, supplaint relied on section 22 of that Act, which provided that the Minister might purchase or otherwise acquire land for the purpose of permanent State forests or provisional State forests or for the purpose of providing access to the same. The words of this section enabled the Minister to purchase any lands deemed, as a matter of policy, suitable for State forests. All matters of State forest policy were controlled by a board known as the State Forests Service. It was in pursuance of a policy adopted by that board that the Minister entered into the agreement to purchase then before the Court. Power to purchase the land also included power to purchase standing timber. Land purchased for State forests would become Crown land at once and, as a State forest, could be sold or otherwise disposed of without the sanction of Parliament. The Minister also had power, under the Public Works Act, to purchase land for the purposes of State forests. During the last few years Parliament had authorised the expenditure of £1,500,000 for the purchase of land for the formation of State forests. Power to enter into an agreement to purchase implied obligation to pay. Counsel conceded that, to bind the Crown, the contract must be shown to have been authorised by Parliament or by an appropriation of public moneys for the purpose. The absence of a certificate authorising payment, however, did not conclude the matter. In the absence of an appropriation, the person who contracted with the Crown was in no worse a position than a person who proceeded against the Crown under the Crown Suits Act and obtained judgment. The Court would not concern itself with the question of how the contract was to be enforced, but only with the question of whether or not there was, in fact, a contract. There -was power under the Forests Act to make such a contract as the one in question; but that contract must, as was the case with all other contracts with the Crown, rely on the good graces of the Crown to carry out its obligations. Mr Gray admitted that suppliant was dependent for payment on an appropriation in the same way as every successful litigant under the Crown Suits Act. Authorities relied on by the Crown were cases where there had. been no appropriation and also no authorisation. In the case before the Court, the Forests Act gave definite authorisation. Argument is proceeding. Frederick John Rayner. of Auckland, filed a petition of right in January, 1929, alleging that, by written agreement with the Commissioner ot State Forests, he agreed to give and the Commissioner, acting for the Crown, agreed to take an option to purchase forests on certain freehold and leasehold lands of about 5140 acres, known as Tauri-Tutukau forests, at a considera

tion of £35,000 for an option. He alleged that the payment of £35,000 was due on October 11, 1928, but had not been paid. The Solicitor-General filed a plea denying the existence of any valid agreement, alleging that suppliant’s title to the lands was not in order, and that such an agreement was beyond authority of the Commissioner. The questions for argument are: (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 Act, 1913, or the fact that suppliant held onlv an option to purchase part of the land, entitle the Commissioner to decline to be bound by the agreement ?