SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

Auckland Star, Volume IX, Issue 2565, 27 June 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) VUCKLAND IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION KKS

V. GRAVES, AICKEN, AND OTHERS. lii this case which related to the purchase of some land on the Barrack Reserve. Mr J. B. Ruhsoll and Mr Tyler appeared in support of ihc demurrer, and Mr Hesketh and Mr Lusk iv support of the declaration. The allottmeuts were described as 150 feet in depth, in the Hue of Princes-street, and no lesa than 30 days' ntticc was to Lie given of the date of the sale. The defendants agreed to purchase one of the allotments for £012 10s, according to conditions of sale. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to cany out their contract, and they prayed the Court to compel defendants to perform their part of the contract. 'I he arguments were heard on both sides, Messrs Russell and T.yier arguing that the declaration was bad, and the Commissioners had exceeded their powers. Mr Hesketh, on the side of plainliife, said that under the statute of frauds, the contract was valid. His Honor, in remarking upon the points at issue, considered that in one point especially the Commissioners had exceeded their powers, and after going carefully over the whole or the matter, held thattlie demurrer against the declaration must be sustained. A veruict therefore was given for defendants with costs.

AUCKLAND IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIONERS

V. MONTAGUE AND OTHERS. This was a similar case to the preceding. Mr Luwk appeared in support of the declaration, and Mr Tyler in support of the demurrer.

Mr Tyler opened the argument in support of the demmurrer at length, quoting similar cases irom numerous authorities, submitting that under the statute of Frauds the plaintiffs were not bound ; there was no evident mutuality in the matter as tho agreement was not fully signed. The mere payment of earnest money was not necessarily a part of the performance.

Hi.s Honor considered that the payment of rent "was apart of the performance of the contract, and although defendant had not signed the agreement, he might on such grounds proceed to shew that he had good ground of action against the plaintiff for the carrying out of the contract.

Mr Tyler resumed his argument at two o'clock.