TAUPO TIMBER LANDS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 938, 3 April 1930, Page 8

TAUPO TIMBER LANDS

DR. RAYNER’S CLAIM AGAINST CROWNARGUMENT CONTINUES From Our Resident Reporter WELLINGTON, Today. ! The case in which Frederick John , j Rayner, dental surgeon, of Auckland. | claims the sum of £ 35,000 from the j Crown as money alleged to be due un- ! i der an agreement for the purchase of i 5,141 acres of standing timber, was j continued before the Court of Appeal | yesterday. On the Bench were Mr. ; Justice Herdman, Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. ; Justice Adams, Mr. Justice Ostler and ; Mr. Justice Smith. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Air. H. J. V. James, appeared for the suppliant, and Mr. A. Pair, K.C., Solicitor-General, and Mr. , A. E. Currie, represented the Crown. | In making further submissions to : the court, Mr. Pair said firstly that ! the payment to be made was for a i mere optional right to purchase, and a | preliminary payment of that kind was not authorised by section 22 of the Forests Act. It was not an acquisition of land within the meaning of that! section. Secondly, the payment was made to ,give the purchaser time to | make up his mind. Apart from the ; provisions of the Public Revenue Act and the constitutional position, the ! Minister was ir the position of a ! trustee, apd could not enter into a j contract involving large future pay- I ments, unless the money was available ; at the time. In other words, the j only power was to carry out a cash j transaction, not one spread over five! or six months, as was intended in the present case. Further, it was not lawful for the Crown to enter into a contract extending over the financial year without special statutory authority. Mr. Gray, in presenting argument for the suppliant, said he would not like the court to lose sight of the fact that primarily the money agreed to be paid was for the option, and was to be credited as part of the purchase money. In regard to the contention by opposing counsel that the agreement to purchase was not authorised by the Forests Act, the case for sup* pliant relied upon section 22 of the Act, where it was provided that the Minister might purchase or otherwise acquire any land for the purpose of permanent State forests, or provisional State forests, or for the purpose of providing access. It had been contended by the Crown that the power was limited to comparatively small purchases, but counsel suggested in that regard that the words in the section were perfectly general and wide, and contained an authority to the Minister to purchase any land deemed as a matter of policy suitable for State forests, and not merely land to add to an existing forest. A power to buy land, continued *Mr. Gray, necessarily included power to buy standing timber. As soon as tho land was purchased for the purpose of a State forest, it would become Crown land at once, and if a permanent State forest, it could not be disposed of without Parliamentary sanction. During the last few years Parliament had authorised the appropriation of not less than £1,500,000 for the acquisition of land, and in connection with the establishment of State forests Mr. Gray made the submission that, to enter into a contract, implied .an obligation to pay. One could not buy without payment. If a person entered into a contract to buy land or anything else, there was necessarily an obligation to pay the price asked. It Ayould be conceded that the cases showed that to bind the Crown it must be proved either that the contract was authorised by Statute, or that the contract not authorised had been ratified by appropriation of public money for the purpose. Admittedly, there ' was"- the absence of a certificate by the permanent head of the department to enable the money to be paicL out of unauthorised expenditure, ’But that, no more than the absence of any appropriation, did not conclude the matter. In the absence of an appropriation a person contracting with the Crown was not in a worse position than a person who had a judgment under the Crown Suits Act, because even in the latter case there could be no payment until after appropriation by Parliament. After further argument, the court adjourned until today.