SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 134, 15 September 1910, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

SAWMILLIXG LICENSE CASE,

By Telegraph. —Press Association. •Dtinedin, Last Night,

Mr. Justice Williams was engaged in the Spreme Court to-day in hearing a motion for mandamus directed to the Commissioner, of State Forests, compelling him to hear and determine applications for sawmilling licenses, in respect to'laiuMield by one Horita A. Massey. The plaintiff is Alexander Robert Wallis, of Dunedin, sawmiller. By his statement of claim the plaintiff says that about February 21 and on March 31 last year he applied for sawmill licenses in respect to a sawmill area in the Oteramika Hundred, comprising 199 acres, with three reserves adjoining (comprising! 6000 acres) and a sawmill area in Oreti Hundred (containing 200 acres), with one reserve adjoining of 140 acres. Plaintiff claimed that a writ of mandamus be issued compelling the Commissioner to hear and determine the application. Defendant, toy filed statements, said he had duly heard and determined the applications made by plaintiff, and »had refused to grant them, the expressed reason of the refir.U being that the areas were already by Massey under good titles.

Mr. Solomon, who appeared for the plaintiff, said a great many years ago, Massey obtained certain titles to certain sawmill licensed areas in Southland. They contended that these licenses, by the operation of the law, had ceased to exist. Then, after the licenses had •ceased to exist, the plaintiff made application for them, the Commissioner of State Forests holding that Massey's titles had not come to an end, and told the plaintiff that as these properties Were held 'by Massey and not open for selection, his application could not be considered. They contended that although the Minister had absolute discretion to say, after consideration of the applications, that he would or would not consider any applications. That attitude, counsel understood, was now taken up by the Crown.

Mr. Fraser, who appeared for the commissioner, submitted that the Commissioner was a Minister of the Crown, and the mandamus would not go to a .servant of the Crown to compel him to discharge _ his administrative functions. The Minister had absolute and uncontrolled discretion, for which he was responsible to Parliament, and not to the judiciary. The second point was that plaintiff had no specific legal right to that which he prayed for. The third point was that the Commissioner had already fully exercised discretion on the application made by Wallis, and if the Court has jurisdiction it should not exercise it, as the plaintiff would admittedly derive no (benefit from the writ. His Honor said he was satisfied the application must fail. The Minister had already exercised his discretion. Judgment was for defendant, with costs on the middle scale.

DECREE NISI GRANTED.

Wellington, Last Night. In the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Chapman, sitting in camera, heard a petition .by Charles Bono, a clerk, for the dissolution of his marriage with Emma Bono, on the grounds of desertion. A decree nisi was granted. The question of the custody of the children was left over.