OIL RIGHTS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 157, 20 November 1912, Page 5

OIL RIGHTS.

SUPREME OOUET CASE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, Last Nigbt. Oil-boring rights were the subject of a dispute before the Chief Justice at the Supreme Court to-day. The action took the form of an originating summons to obtain a declaratory judgment. The parties were Frank Duncan Herrick and Edward Jasper Harrick, of Tautane, Hawke's Bay, and Arthur Desmond Herrick, of Oponae, all sheep farmers, and Emily Martha Herrick, of Hamstead, London, widow, plaintiffs, and the Kotuku Oilfields Syndicate, Ltd., carrying on business In New Zealand and elsewhere as oil-borers, defendant. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. H. F. O'Leary, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Hannan, of Grcymouth, with him Mr. T. 11. G. Lloyd, of Dannevirke. for the defendant company. By deed of grant, dated July 19, 1011,' plaintiffs granted to respondent ocrt;>in petroleum rights. The deed contained a provision for the termination of th> grunt if boring operations were not conniicncpd within twelve months by sinking a bore or bores of not less in the aggregate than 2000 feet, "provided, however, that the grantee shall by the Ist day of August, 1913, but not afterwards, be entitled to have its rights under this grant revived, if it pay to the grantors the sum ni £IOO per month in advance from tip Ist of August, 1912, until it shall delivered upon some part of the saM lands substantially the whole of the said plant and start boring operations; the above mentioned sum to be paid as damages after August l, 1912, unless this grant shall be cancelled."

In an affidavit by F. D. Herrick it was stated that the defendant company had failed to comply with the conditions of the grant, notice of the termination of which had been given on August 2, 1912. Plaintiffs claimed—(a) That defendant company was not entitled to have its rights revived, inasmuch as it did not pay the sum of £IOO by August 1,1012; (b) if entitled to have its rights revived, the company was liable to pay the sum of £IOO per month in advance until the deed of grant should be cancalled.

Defendant Company claimed (a) that it was entitled to have its rights revived; (b) that if so entitled it was liable to pay plaintiffs the sum of £IOO per month in advance until it should have commenced boring operations. ■The court was asked to interpret the deed of grant in view of these contentions. After granting argument His Ilonor reserved decision.