HOKITIKA WARDEN’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 18 November 1921, Page 1

HOKITIKA WARDEN’S COURT

j TIU H.SDAV. NOV. 17ili. (I Jo fore Wal'd on MoUlnimt. H. Whiley (.Mr Murdoch) W. 11. Kohinson (Mr Pilkingtonl suit for cancellation of sawmill license (Continued.) ■l. N. Xalder. clork of Court, gave evideneo that the sawmill license 3900 was granted on Bth. July. 1920. I'oui months protection was granted on lltli. February. 1921. Koljoi't Whilev deposed ho was a sawmiller ob Kokatahi Itoad. Know dufoudant ami his sawmill lioonso .1900. i Nothing lias lioon doin' on the ground | siiioo the license was granted. Wit ness hold grazing lights over the ;ir<'ii. but could mu gel a hotter title until the milling tiniher was out otl it. Mas satisfied the area had been abandoned for the past two months. If ho gel the land ho "as piopared to work it. | llnvi a sawmill »n the K oka la hi road 'ami was constantly wml ing it. A «no ' bench mill would ho sufficient to wold; i the hush. If the defendant tool desired In- croih 1 have pencilled a suitable plant | since July last year, j To Air Pilkingtnn In the post ! thißo years had cut out l>etwo''n ill) I(„ Jo acres. Ilf had s«>Ul an engine ■ to IYitdianl which was on a site less than half a mile final the present area. Lengthy argument took place between counsel and tin* A\ ardou as to procedure, his Worship inline that the matter endeavoured to he brought. ill f,y fur defendant was not. rei elant. William Fleming. Clown hands llanser gavr evidence as to area held by various siiwmillvrs. Defendant had not applied to witness for permission for another mill to cut limber otf the area in question. Protection was granted previously hut nothin;' was done, lie would not lie prepared to roeoniiimmi a further protection 1 . This was the ease for tin plaintiff. Mr Pilkingtnn said he had no id--I.llol'' to call. He pointed ; this and another area wear hy were taken up about the same time, t Inc was surrendered and tin 1 prosput held. It was proposed to work the two areas together. Hot the defendant un-Im-kilv wave tile opportunity to the present plaintiff that, enabled him to secure lh" land which defendand had ultimately pui.lmsed from plaintiir. Meantime defendant had negotiated for a. plant to wur' the area In a lengthy review ol the whole circumstances counsel concluded b\ holding that in all the eireunistanees a fin,, uf lieu of fortfeitlire would meat

f|‘is AVorstiip said hi l thought this w'as a rase for forfeit nre of tlm a rra. The defendant took it up in .Inly I!•’_*«t. and iliil nothing till lltli. I’cbrntiry, l!l-l when he :i j i)»1 i«• 1 1 for protection, et a t ini’ hr did so to make lieressaiy aiuangvinent s for a plant to be erected in ti months. Nothing; had hern done. lie did not appeal to la 1 in the liplil of a bona tide sawmillrr. lie had treated his old ion t inns very lightly. Had made no attempt to comply with the conditions of the license. It was evident today on the ground that timber was lining cat on the area by the owners id another sawmill without ally permission id' tin- Court, Km I'eitnrc would lie decreed with costs lib-; one witness | Is. counsel Co os.a. total of £7 os. rlaintilf was divlnrod - entitled to be first applicant for the area. \V ||. Hobinsou (Air I’ilkingtim) for pi elect ion, was withdrawn. Cmin--fee of L'l Is., was allowed Mr Murdoch, who appeared for the objector. It. Mhiley.