SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume X, Issue 2766, 28 April 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tiiuesday, APiiiL 27, 1870.

(Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) GHAY T. WATT. (Continued from yesterday.) W. H, Watt said— l received, the power of attorney produced from Messrs Martin and Marshall, Mr Jas. Gray's executors ; Mr Gray was my adjoining neighbour and he was the reputed owner of the land ; I acted under the power of attorney ;I never hoard of Samuol.Gray's claiming the land until Mr Burns' arrival in the Colony, when I received a communication from Samuel Gray ; I acted in reference to the land under the power of atiorncy and under the direction of the executors until Mr Burns arrived ; I never personally occupied tho land, although Taylor and Watt's cattle crazed on the land ; people's cattle run somelimes on one property and then on another ; the land was not fenced ; I sent an account to Mr Burns ; I had been sued for the rates as Mr Gray's agent, and Mr Burns authorized me to pay the rates ; that is the ratification referred to in the letter ; the value o£ the land in 1871 was 50s, which Mr Dyke purchased; the property was treafcedas James Gray's estate.

The Court here adjourned for three quarters of an hour. On the Court re-sitting at 2 o'clock, Mr Watt was cross-examined by Mr Hutchison as follows : — Any occupation I had of the land was from the executors of tho late James Gray ; I was a partner of the firm of Taylor and Watt, the owners of the adjoining property ; that property was open in 1868 ; there was a fence between sections 97 and 98, the latter being Dyke's ; as agent for James Gray I put up one half and Dyke the other half ; except a gap and half a chain ; I drew on James Gray and Son of Edinburgh for the fence between James Gray and Dyke ; the account produced includes all the rates ; the dividing fence between the 300 acres and Dyke's was erected about 1868 ; in J 870 1 put up the fence fronting the road ; I have not sent in a claim to Gray's estate for this fence ; Taylor and Watt's land adjoins the two unfenced sides j Mr Burns has not 'paid the rates recovered against me. Mr Dyke settled in the Brunswick district about 1866 ; my administration extended down to 1873 up to which time I acted for James Gray's executors ; in 1863 I informed Messrs Marshall and Martin that James Gray was the grantee and that the grant would be made out in his name ; I knew Mr James Gray intimately ; lam not aware that he had any family ; I received consignments from him ; I charged Taylor and Watt the same terms as other people ; I was repeatedly asked whether tho sections wero for sale or lease; I could not lease them, but in order to lessen the expense, I let them to adjoining land owners on conditions that they should fence them, and give them up at a moment's notice if required ; I lefc the 300 acres to Taylor and Watt as Gray's agents ; I never drew on Samuel Gray, and do not know that hois one of the firm of James Gray and Son ; I paid £10 per acre for the 300 acres I purchased ; Taylor and Watt tried to occupy the land up to the time o£ sale ; [the documents containgthc proceedings taken by Mr Wafcfc against Mr Dyke in 1872 were produced and read, which wont to shew that the land was in tho occupation of Taylor and Watt.]

John Dunn, deposed — I am a labourer ; I occupied some of Gray's land some time ago ; Mr Watt put me h occupation ; I was to fence the land and pay rates ; Mr James Gray was the owner, and it was for him that Mr Watt let tho land on those terms ; several persons cattle ran over the 300 acres in question ; it was not occupied exclusively by Mr Watt, By Mr Hutchison — It has only been run over by Dyke's cattle since being fenced ; the general idea was that ifc boing absentee land, anyone had a right to use it.

This closed, the defendant's case.

Mr Travers, in addressing the jury, said it was clear that Mr James Gray himself occupied the land up to the time of his death a3 his own, between 1853 and 1863. There was not a scrap of paper brought forward to show that Samuel Gray had anything to do with it. Mr Adam Burns recommended, to the two Melbourne gentlemen, the appointment of Mr Watt as agent, ;md accordingly a power of attorney was forwarded to him. His Honor said it was questionable whether the case should go to Hie jury, but he thought ho would allow it to go.

Mr Travers read extracts from the executor's correspondence which wont to show that the estate was treated as being the property of James Gray. The executors were under tho belief that Mr James Gray was the equitable owner of the land. It was all a farce (o convert Mr Watt into a tenant. The relation of landlord and tenant must subsist between Mr Samuel Gray and Mr Watt, before a recovery could be made. Mr Hutchison also addressed the jury after which his Honor proceeded to sum up the evidence, which he did at greab length. The jury retired, and after an absence of about 25 minutos, returned with the following res alt of their considerations :-- To the first issue, Did the defendant use and occupy the lands as in the declaration alleged 'l\ the verdict was No. To the other issue, What sum is tho plaintiff: entitled to recover from the defendant under the claim made 1 the verdict was None.

The registrar announced that the court stood adjourned till Monday next, at 10 o'clock, when the suite Worgan V. Curl would bo called on.