THE SOUTHLAND LEASES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 245, 6 March 1913, Page 5

THE SOUTHLAND LEASES.

WHO OWNS THE MINERALS. By Telegraph—Press Association-. Invercargill, Last Night. Argument in the case of Gavin Brighton v. the Commissioner of Crown Lands, was heard by Mr. Justice AVilliams to-day. This was an originating summons under the Declaratory Judgments Act to determine the meaning of the words in subsection 1. section ,1 of the Land Amendment Act, 1912, namely, "the land comprised ill lease." Mr. W. A. Stout is appearing for the plaint ill', and the Attorney-General (Mr. A. Herdman), and Mr. W. McAlister for the Crown. Mr. Stout stated that the plaintiff is the holder of two leases in perpetuity, purporting to be issued under section 121 of the Land Aet, 1892, with endorsement., reserving the right of minerals. Notice to purchase under the Act of 1912 was given and the next step was to assess the price under section 35. The Commissioner did not assess the price, but an amount equal to the purchase price was paid by plaintiff to the receiver. The application came before the Land Board, but was held over. Plaintiff's solicitors held that the application was not a matter for the Board, as plaintiffs were entitled to a Crown grant upon the completion of purchase, and eventually the Department replied to the effect that a title would be issued giving Brighton all he was entitled to under the Act. namely the surface of the land, hence the present action. By the Act the lessee was to get the fee simple, and counsel cited authorities in support of the contention that the fee simple was the most extensive inheritance and possession in land. They were not concerned '.vith the intention of the Legislature. His Honor: "Oh yes, we are. If there's a doubt- that would lead to absurdity, we must take it the way that does not lead to absurdity." Mr. Stout contended that it was not the duty of the Court to repair the mistakes of the Legislature, and that the Act must be interpreted according to its plain meaning . The Attorney-General contended that the intention of the 1912 Act was perfectly clear and that the construction asked bv Mr .Stout led to an absurdity. When Brighton got the lease, the provisions of section 121 made it clear that minerals did not form part of the lands comprised therein, and also that minerals could be severed from the land. Brighton had a right to the surface only, minerals being excepted both by statute and covenant. ITis Honor reserved his decision.