! ---128 20,,
+
"..
+
. 15
100.
G09.
19..
.0
iL
48 doroa dal
CONQİNOVL.09
16 (Contrived).
84
The Solicitore for liewers. Butterfield & Swire (Messrs. Johnson,
Stokes & Master) made an offer to produce documents with them;
Upon the inspection of these Cocumente the pipe line permit was
asked for; letter of 16th April, 1894, document 8 supra, wa€
produceá. No 'permito', in the form of 9, or in any other form,
were produced.
Amongst the documents produced whe a Lincence for another pipe
line (and a cutek pil) dɛted £8th May, 1904, loopy infra),
Subsequent to the injection the Superintendent of Crown Lands
wae aɛkef if, notwithstanding the ieue of this licence, ha
would, me a matter of routine or by way of recording the annual
payment and currency of the liccace, issne one of his permits;
His answer was to this effect,-
Vertuinly act; if such permit came to be 138 ned
it world orly be by mistake and in error, possi-
bly owing to issue of a Licence by some Depart-
ment without coordination with the Public Worts
Ieper twent, or because such Licence could not be
traced. In no case would issue of a per.nit
knowingly follow a licence such as the Licence
of £8th May, 1904. a pernit would always follow
a letter from the Director of Public Worke
assenting to an application if the applicant
wished to go on with the matter.
It now appears that a 'pernit' was in fact issued some yeary
after the Licence, and that during recent years the permit
procedure for the further pipe line and catch pit and for the
relevant pipe line has been the same.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.