WHO OWNS THE GRAVEL?

Taranaki Daily News, 13 November 1915, Page 3

WHO OWNS THE GRAVEL?

TRUSTEE OR LESSEE. A QUESTION OF ROYALTY. The vexed question of royalty ou gravel taken by local bodies or their contractors from properties leased from the Public Trustee, under the West Coast Reserves Act, formed the subject of discussion at the meeting of the Egmont County Council yesterday, when Mr. Barns, Reserves Agent, waited on that body, and stated that he had bad considerable correspondence with the Council over the matter and desired a settlement. He had asked for a list of the quantities of metal taken from any properties .leased from the Public Trustee, who claimed the royalty in all cases. If the Council or its servants went on a property to take metal, they would be liable to the lessee for surface duina.se. lie had also submitted a claim for kil for royalty for gravel taken from Mr. .Morris' property, but so far had -not received any settlement. The chairman said that they would be glad to have the matter cleared up; so as to know whom to pay, because at present the Public Trustee rlaimed the whole. Md, and the lessee disputed the Public Trustee's right to the whole amount.

■Mr. Barns said that they could not find any record of an arrangement having been made with Mr. R. \V. Fisher, a former Reserves Agent, to the effect that the royalty should be divided equally between the Public Trustee and the lessee. The onus, of course, lay on the Council to prove this. He understood that the Council would deal impersonally with the matter, as a duty to the ratepayers, in the same way as the Public Trustee would for his beneficiaries.

Cr. Dudley said he understood that a. friendly action was to be fought to decide the matter once and for all.

The chairman said that they paid 3d rovaltv to freeholders. Mr.'Barns said that both the Taranaki and Clifton County Councils paid the Public Trustee 3d royalty.

In reply to questions, Mr. Barns said that the Public Trustee retained all the rovaltv for the beneficiaries.

Mr. Morris, who was present, said that he was satisfied when he received half the royalty, though he considered that he had" the worst of the deal. He was the biggest loser, as, in additioii to the damage done to his fences, gates, etc., by contractors, he lost the use of a eertain portion of his land on which he had to pay rent, rates, etc. He would ibe better satisfied if the pit were shut

The clerk stated that the metal quantities asked for would be available in a few days. The delay was due to his illness and the change of engineers. The correspondence in connection with the payment of l'/jd to the Public Trustee and lVid to the lessee had been destroyed in the fire at the office. Mr. Barns admitted that l'/ 2 d had been accepted in the past.

Cr. Dudley asked if it had ever occurred to the Public Trustee that the metal was being put on the roads so as to enhance the value of the' property. Instead of trying to "jamb" everything on to the Council and ratepayers he .should be pleased to let them make the roads as cheaply as possible. After further discussion, in which it appeared that the Public Trustee expected to be paid 3d for the royalty, and the local body or contractor would be liable for a further l'/ s d for surface damage, the Council decided, on the suggestion of Cr. Mcßeynolds. to compromise by paying 2d to the Public Trustee and 2d to the lessee.

This Mr. Barns agreed to submit to the Public Trustee for approval.

Cr. Dudley then asked whether the Public Trustee -had a legal right to demand royalty if a lessee sold stone which had been gathered from the surface whilst ploughing. If he had, it seemed an absurd condition to impose on a mini for improving his land.

Mr. Barns said that the 'Public Trustee had a legal right to collect royalty on all metal, but he did not think in such eases the claim would he pressed.