WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4732, 7 March 1884, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) MINING INSPECTOR V. M. CABET.

This case was adjourned from the last sitting of the Court to enable Mr Puckey, who acted as Government Agent in dealt ing with the natives, to furnish a statement as to an arrangement made re the bush in question. Mr Miller, who appeared for the defendant, pat in a declaration made by Mr Puckey, who visited the Thames since last Court day, but was unable to remain. This was to the effect that he, as Government Agent at Thames, sold the kauri trees in dispute to Messrs Whitaker and Russell, who had, as the evidence previously given showed, sold the trees to the defendant; the native owners had concurred in the sale, and the money paid was divided between, them.

Mr Miller contended that this title was sufficient, and called—

M. Casey, who swore that he had been cutting kauri trees at Tararo for about three years under an agreement with Souter (produced), from whom he had bought the trees. Until within the last three weeks he had never been interfered with in the cutting. Had not cut a large quantity. He was never aware that he was committing a breach of tho regulations in cutting the timber.

B. Comer deposed that he had obtained permission from the Warden to cut the timber within the disputed area, and he paid for the trees through the Inspector of Miners' Bights, but the money was returned on the ground that the trees belonged to Mr Whitaker, and that the Government could not sell.

The Warden said that the main question appeared to bo whether the sale to Messrs Whitaker and Bussell was a legal one, and after carefully reading the agreements and regulations he came to the conclusion that the lands having come under the control of the Government, became waste lands of the Crown under the. Act of 1566, and any person cutting timber without permission was subject to the same penalties as for cutting on other Crown lands. The natives had conceded all their rights to cut timber on the land in question, and proper authority should have been obtained to cut it. Bo person had a right to cut the timber without a' licence. The natives could not give such power. The defendant had committed a breach of the regulations, and would be fined Ib, without costs.