ROYALTIES ON GUM

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 684, 8 June 1929, Page 11

ROYALTIES ON GUM

LANDOWNER SUES DIGGERS HEAVY DAMAGES SOUGHT Deals in kauri gum. extracted from a property on the Mangawai Flats, made by Joseph John Silich, a Dargaville gumdigger, were investigated by his Honour Sir Alexander Herdman in

the Supreme Court yesterday afternoon. Silich presented his story of the gum-digging rights agreement he made with Hayward Charles Subritzky in defending a claim for £ 531 uaniagv*, representing £l3l loss of royalty, £2OO for depreciation of land £IOO for royalty on gum left in the land, and £IOO general damages. Nicholas Silich, a brother, who had been cited as co-defendant, was dismissed from the action at the conclusion of plaintiff’s case, it having been shown that he had been released from

tiie agreement at an early stage. John Joseph Silich declared that he had washed 4 \ acres of the land, which had produced 120 tons of gum. At first he had extracted, cleaned and sold 35 tons of gum on the Auckland market, which realised £lB 15s net. He paid out the royalty to Subritzky accordingly. However, he found this procedure was unprofitable, and in September last year started selling uncleaned gum to his brother, who cleaned and sold the product on the city market. He justified this action by saying he thought he was entitled to do so under the agreement with Subritzky, though he admitted he had not informed the landowner of the sales to his brother. He declared that cleaning cost £6 10s a ton and freight and commission another £3 a ton. Therefore he claimed that the royalty on uncleaned gum sold at £l4 a ton was fair and reasonable. Silich denied to his Honour that he and his brother Nicholas had been working in partnership while washing on Subritzky’s property. He admitted, however, that he had paid the royalties on clean guin up to September last year, and from then on had disposed of the natural product to his brother.

Nicholas Silich described the agreement he had entered into to purchase uncleaned gum from his brother. He cleaned the product and disposed of it on the Auckland market. He declared that the land washed had been left in a reasonably flat condition. Before adjourning the hearing sine die to enable the defence to call further evidence, his Honour remarked that he would need very strong testimony to persuade him to depart from the interpretation which both plaintiff and defendant placed on the agreement. The three issues for determination were whether plaintiff was entitled to royalty on cleaned gum, whether he was entitled to damages for the state in which the land had been left, and whether he was entitled to royalty on the gum left in the land.