WHALERS’ DISPUTE

Hokitika Guardian, 10 June 1926, Page 1

WHALERS’ DISPUTE

LICENSES IN QUESTION. BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSN:, COPYRIGHT. BLENHEIM, June 9. J udge Ostler to-day heard a. dispute at the Supreme Court between two whaling parties operating in Tory Channel and Cook Strait. The plaintiffs were E. C. Perano and his whaling party, and the defendant was Joseph August Perano. The plaintiffs’ claim was that their party were associated with the defendant as a whaling party from before 1919 until 1923, when the rsst of the party bought out the defendant’s interest. Tlie party worked together during tho seasons of 1919, 1920 ,1921, and 1922, hut about May, 1923, the defendant sold to the rest-of the party the whole of his interest in the party and in its assets, but had not handed over tlie party’s books, papers, and documents; and he also had retained in his own name the license to the slipway used by the party, and the lease to lands.

Further the plaintiffs claimed that in November. 1923, the defendant applied for, and was granted, permission to reclaim a corner of Fishing Bay for the purpose of erecting a whaling station on the opposite side of Tory Channel to that used by the plaintiff party and on March 30, 1926, he had secured a permit to use certain adjacent Crown land as a site for a" whaling factory. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that the defendant be declared tile trustee for them of the license to erect a slipway, and that he be deemed to assign his right to the plaintiffs’, together with the lease of the adjacent land, and that he be directed to deliver up the party’s books, papers and documents, and that the Court make a declaration that the defendant’s permit to erect a factory is illegal and void, on the grounds that the factory would bo witliln 50 m.iles of tlie plaintiff's’ factory, contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Fisheries Amendment Act, and that an injunction be issued restricting the defendant from carrying on a whaling factory on this land. The defence, as outlined, was that the defendant was prepared to deliver the foreshore license to the plaintiffs on a proper document being presented to him, and lie denied that the plaintiff's had over demanded possession of tlie books and papers, with the exception of one hook, which he had handed, on demand, to E. C. Perano. The statement of the defence further claimed that the defendant’s factory was not within 50 miles of any other shore whaling station licensed by the Govcrnor-in-Council under tho Act, though it was less than 50 miles from the station used by the plaintiffs. Air Treadwell outlined the facts given above at some length but when be was dealing with the alleged illegality of the Government permit to erect a factory, His Honour observed that this appeared to he a matter of the Court constructing the statute, and bo ruled that the matter could not bo argued, as an attack on tbe State, without the Attorney-General being joined to tlie proceedings. His Honour reserved his decision on the points raised until the main issue of the case, the matter of an injunction, in which the Attorney-General is to he represented, is decided. Tlie case was adjourned to enable tbe Attorney-General to bo heard in Wellington if he so desires.