Rights of Lessees.

Hokitika Guardian, 7 February 1922, Page 1

Rights of Lessees.

TIMBER ON NATIVE LANDS. WELLINGTON, Feb. 4. A ease stated by the Waiariki Maori Land Board was the subject of a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court yesterday by His Honour Mr Justice Hosking. A block of 3000 acres of native land, known as Botoiti No. 58, was leased to one Andrew Brown in 1913. A meeting of owners in 1920 decided to sell the block to William Theodore Hampson. of Rotorua. T||e court was asked to express an opinion as to whether the lease conferred on tiie lessee the right to cut or desrqy or sell the timber on the land. Mr Hampson appeared to argue that the questions should be answered in the affirmative. ENGLISH AND COLONIAL LAW. Under the law of England, said His Honour, all trees, unless excepted, pass as parcel of the demised premises, and the lessee becomes possessed of a special property in timber trees as long as they are annexed to the land, and is entitled to all such benefit. The New Zealand Transfer Act, to whi the lease was subject, did not confer on the tenant a general right to cut down or destroy the trees, beyond providing himself for repairs, implements, fuel, etc. The general property in the timber remained in the landlord. WHAT TREES ARE “TIMBER?” His Honour remarked that lie was not aware that any judicial decision, but one, had determined what trees were to be deemed timber in New Zealand, for the purpose of determining the rights and duties in the case of limited ownership, but, by analogy to the law of England, the question of what \Jas timber must, doubtless, in the first instance, be decided upon evidence of locality and usage. HIS HONOUR’S SUGGESTION.

His Honour traversed judgments and leading English authorities on the definition of “timber,” and said the case was important, in determining the rights of tenants regarding it. He suggested to the board tha,t, in all cases where land wholly or partly coveicd with hush was intended to be leased, the question of the rights in respect of timber should be specially considered and provided for. SALE OF VESTED ESTATE. As regards tli question whether it Was competent for the owners to pass a resolution to sell the freehold, where the estate was vested in the body corporte, His Honour said he saw no reason why it should not he answered in the affirmative. The language of the Order-j ll-Council did not, he thought, prevent the sale, without license, of the freehold of any land on which timber Happened to be standing. He therefore decided that the Maori Land Board’s confirmation of the resolution of the owners,, and tlieir execution of the transfer were not in contravention of tiie Order-in-Council. His Honour added that, if any leave was necessary in order to appeal from all or any part of the judgment, such leave was granted-