CLAIM AGAINST CROWN

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 936, 1 April 1930, Page 10

CLAIM AGAINST CROWN

RAYNER CASE BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL QUESTIONS OF LAW Press Association WELLINGTON, Today. A further phase of the case Rayner v the King came before the Court of Appeal today, when the court heard argument on questions of law arising cut of the facts and to be determined before trial. Frederick John Rayner, of Auckland, a dental surgeon, in January last year, filed a petition of right under the Crown Suits Act against the King, alleging that by a written agreement dated October 11, 1928, made with the Commissioner of State Forests, he agreed to give, and the commissioner, acting on behalf of the King, agreed to take an option to purchase forests of timber on certain freehold and leasehold lands containing approximately 5,140 acres, known as the Tauri and Tutukau forests, at a consideration of £35,000 for the option, in the event of the option being exercised, the price of the timber to be ascertained and paid in a manner provided for in the agreement, credit being given for the consideration paid for the option. He further alleged that of this sum £35,000 was payable on October 11, 1928, but had not yet been paid, and asked that right be done in the matter. The Solicitor-General, in turn, filed a plea to this petition denying the existence of a valid agreement, and alleging that at the time of the negotiations between the suppliant and the commissioner, the former’s title to the lands in question was not in order, and even if it were proved that 'file agreement, as alleged, had been entered into, the same was beyond the authority of the commissioner, and therefore not binding on the Crown. The case was thereupon set down tor trial, but Mr. Justice Ostler made an order for argument, before the Court of Appeal, of certain questions of law arising out of the facts, these questions, set down as follow, beingargued today. . Was the agreement referred to in the petition ultra vires of the Commissioner of State Forests? 2 ~ Did the ract that the land was subject to part XIII. of the Land Act, 1924, and Section 74 of the Native Land Amendment Act, 1913, or the fact that the suppliant was not the registered proprietor of the whole land, but held a portion under an option to purchase, entitle the commissioner to decline to be bound by the agreement?

For the suppliant, Mr. A. Gray, K.C., and Mr. H. V. James appear, and for the Crown, Mr. A. Fair, K.C. (SolicitorGeneral) and Mr. A. E. Currie On the Bench are Mr. Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler and Mr. Justice Smith.