OPTION ON FORESTS.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17985, 2 April 1930, Page 6

OPTION ON FORESTS.

QUESTION OF AGREEMENT. ACTION BY DR. RAYNER. (By T elec-rapt).—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. A further phase of the case of Rayner v. the King came before I tie Court of Appeal to-day, when the Court heard argument on questions of law, arising out of the facts, to he determined before trial. Frederick John Rayner, of Auckland, dental surgeon, in January last year filed a petition of right under the Crown Suits Act against the King, alleging that by written agreement dated October 11, 1928, made with the Commissioner of Stale Forests he agreed to give, and the Commissioner, acting on behalf of the King, agreed to take, an option to purchase forests of timber on certain freehold and leasehold lands containing approximately 5140 acres, known as the Tauri Tutukau forests, at the consideration of £35,000 for the option, and in the event of the option beingexercised, the price of timber was 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, hut had not yet been paid, and asked that right be done in the matter. The Solicitor-General in turn filed a plea to this petition, denying the existence of a valid agreement, and alleging that at the lime of the negotiations between the suppliant and the Commissioner the former’s title to the lands in question was not in order, and even if it were proved that the agreement, as alleged had been entered into, it was beyond Hie 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 the argument before the Court of Appeal of certain questions of law arising out of the facts. These ■questions, which were being argued to-day, are: — (1) Was the agreement referred to in the petition ultra vires? (2) Did the fact that the land was subject to part XIII. of the Land Act, 1924, and section 74 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1913, or the fact that the suppliant was not the registered proprietor of the whole land hut held a portion of the option to purchase, entitle the Commissioner to decline to be bound by the agreement?