RIVER SHINGLE

Hokitika Guardian, 20 May 1930, Page 3

RIVER SHINGLE

right of removal

LOCAL bodies-at'VARIANCE.

. .PALMERSTONvN.-, Mhy.Tov ( ' A*‘case of importance,' t 6 J ' Counity Councils and' other local■■ bodies caWfe before, the Supreme CdurtetoMay;; wheia the Chief Justice (Sir Michael was vasked tO'; decide- whether Li'ldeal body (the Pahiatua County Council)/ had the last say as fo-whether gravel' could be removed from the bed of a ; liver where-dt ran through land owned by the Crown. The bed of tlie Alakuri liver/whei*e>" it flows through Alakuri township .is*, vested in 1 lie Crown, but it is wholly!;

mdde Pahiatua county, Outside the township the river bed is vested in. private riparian owners. The Akitio county'is five miles away at the near-" est point, and unfortunately hiis a;very limited simply of gravel for its; roads. The Pahiatua Council has been'’ taking gravel out of the river at the? town-hip for many years without any ' license from the Crown, and two orthree years ago the Akitio Council' commenced to do the same thing. The? Pahiatua Council objected, and evert? took for its own use ows-el which Aki-’ tio workmen had taken out of tlie \ stream. In 1927 an agreement was? reached by which Pahiatua was t(>. sup-’, plv Akitio with a certain quantity of metal, btit nothing was done. Akitio.again commenced to visit the river? - bed. It was then that the Pahiatua? Council secured an ex parte injunction? which tlie : Akitio Cc-uyc’! ;4 ”ipd' to getj rescinded. Mr Justice Ostler.' how-? ever, left the matter-as it stood pend- , ing an enquiry into the question o£‘ the rights of the Crown as owner. The? Crown subsequently gave the Akitio; Council the right under licensedo- take; gravel, and the question before, the; Court to-day was whether the Pallia-;' tua Council could still.prevent the-Ak.i-? tio Council from taking gravel in spite of the license issued by the, ■Cro'vyfi'i;.. ' His Honor said that the matter was of such importance that he would, take time ; to consider the matter. He;;. tho”ght he would consult with Mr Jus- t lice Ostler first on the question of : whether the Crown should be joined] in 1 ihe case. The simplest way would have; been to take the whole question before the Court, of Anneal. . Counsel pointed out that the Akitio Council did not desire to embark upon more litigation than was necessary, and if. it could get what .-it wanted, through the present action an appeal? wouM not be necessary. The matter' might he of general importance to others, but the Akitio Council was concerne; 1 only with getting grayel. - His Honour said he agreed with the' * comment bv Air Justice Ostler in his\; judgment that it was a pity the Coun-;'' tv Councils .concerned could not have’ come together and reached an agree-’ mont in an endeavour to conserve the -. ’ ratepayers’ money. He also wondered; - ' why the County Councils’ Association had not taken up the question.