TIMBER-CUTTING RIGHTS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 241, 6 July 1920, Page 6

TIMBER-CUTTING RIGHTS

♦ DOES THE LAND ACT APPLY? His Honour Mr. Justice Sim heard in tho Supreme Court yesterday a case of considerable moment to the dairying interests of the North Island. The case, was that of the Egmont Box Company, Ltd., v. the Registrar-General of Lanas. Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. S. Ji.. Maeassey for the defendant. Questions which the Court was by originating summons asked to answer were whether tho plaintiff company was debarred or prevented under the Land Act, 1908, from acquiring auy interest 'in land which is subject to part XIII of the Act, by reason of the fact that the company already held more timber rights in respect to lands which exceeded ft total of 5000 acres; nnd, what was tho true meaning of section 3il (1) of the Act which contained the' words "all other land of any description owned, held, or occupied." It appeared that the plaintiff company was, in substance, a co-operative concern, the business of which was wlely that of a sawmiller. and timbor merchant. On behalf of the dairying interests of the North Island it was contended that the plaintiff company, or some similar company, should be in existence in ordor to produce tho necessary timber for making packages for the carriage and export of dairy produce. For this purpose the company had acquired cutting rights. Mr. Myers said that part XIII of tho Act was "intended to prevent aggregation of agricultural and pastoral land and to promote small settlements. The object 'of the Statute was not impeded, but. was assisted, by the operations 'of the plaintiff company, which wanted to assist settlement. Mr. Myers contended that tho Act related only to Sinning land, and that the company held exclusive rights only to cut and remove timber—it did not hold or occupy areas of land in excess of the limits specified bv the Act. Mr. Macassev said he recognised that the granting "of timber rights did not give the right to occupy land. He submitted, however, that the granting of timber •■rights gave an interest in land, therefore the operations of the plaintiff company enmo within the scope of section U\ of the xAct. The word "interest" in the Statute must be, given tli" widest and fullest interpretation. His Honour reserved decision.