HUGHES V. HANNA.

Auckland Star, Volume XXIX, Issue 177, 29 July 1898, Page 5

HUGHES V. HANNA.

PONSONBY LAND DISPUTE

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS,

Yesterday the action Stephen Edward Hughes v. William Boak and Samuel DaAvson Hanna, in connection with the recent. dispute over a small portion of ground adjoining the residences of Messrs Boak and Hanna, in Ponsonby, was commenced at the Supreme Court before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly. The claim was for £50 damages for removal of fencing. Mr Hugh Campbell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Theo. Cooper and Mr A Hanna for the defendants.

Mr Campbell read the pleadings and stated that the action waa one for trespass, and the defence was practically that the place was a public highway. The land in dispute Avas a piece 200 feet in length and 40 feet wide, running from Ring Terrace to Hack-ett-street, Ponsonby. He (Mr Campbell) did not intend to do more at this stage of the case than prove the trespass, and then he Avould call evidence after defendants' case to rebut. The statement of claim alleged that the plaintiff was the owner of the land by virtue of certain legal deeds and conveyances, beginning with a Crown grant to one Graham, in 1845, and that on March 30, 1898, the,defendants entered on the land in question between Ring Terrace and Hackett-street and cut the chain on the gates thereon and removed and carried away a large quantity of fencing and a gate, and did other damage. The statement detailed the various deeds, etc., by which the land came into the possession of plaintiff. The statement of defence filed stated that the defendants required the plaintiff to prove that by deed dated November 5, 1845, Her Majesty the Queen granted to Thomas Graham allotment .13, of section 8, of the suburb of Auckland for ever and deny any such deed was made. They required tl^e plaintiff to prove that Thomas Graham referred to in the statement of, claim willed the allotment to his''wife, and that she, in 1864, conveyed part of the allotment to Barnes T. Boylan; they denied that any such will or deed,was made. They also required the plaintiff to prove conveyances of the land thereafter successively to James Stodart, Charles A. Bevan, and the plaintiff, and denied that such conveyances were made. They denied that Hughes was the OAvner of the land in question or that the defendants removed the fencing or did any damage on March 30, 1898. The defendants further said that in or about- the year 1877 James Stodart, referred to in the statement of claim and then being the owner of the land in question, agreed with the Ponsonby HighAvay Board to set apart a piece of land 200 feet long and running between Ring Terrace and Hackett-street, Avith a frontage of 40 feet to each street, as a public road, and that the said Road Board under the poAvers vested in them by law agreed to stop a certain portion of the said Ring Terrace and a! certain other j road between the two above streets knoAvn as SAvift Avenue. The said Board, therefore, according to law, took all necessary steps to stop, the last mentioned road in accordance with the Public Works Act, 1876, and on NoA-embcr 26, 1877, it having been decided that the said road should be stopped, the necessary meeting was duly held and confirmed the decision of the ratepayers that the said roacf should be stopped. All necessary notices Avere then given antJv the said road then known as Swii: Avenue ceased to be a public higlrway. On August 24, 18S2, the new road passed under the control of the Auckland City Council. The deed of dedication Avas not in possession of defendants and they Avere unable to annex a copy. The defendants therefore said that the said land Avas a public road and the plaintiff had no right or interest therein. The first Avitness called on behalf of rthe plaintiff- Avas: Robert McVeagh, solicitor, and managing common law clerk of the firm of Russell and Campbell. He deposed to having made a search for the Crown grant of the piece of land in question (which Avas taken out and registered) but he had been unable to find it and believed it to be lost. Mr Cooper held that the evidence was not enough to prove that the grant Avas lost, and His Honor upheld the objection. Mr Campbell proposed to put in a copy of the CroAvn grant under the hand of the Registrar of Deeds. Mr Cooper objected, saying that this Avould be only second hand eAddence, and that the loss of the document would have to be proved first. His Honor said he was sorry, but could not admit the eA'idence. Mr Campbell puVin a certificate of the death of Thomas Graham, a gardener, in the year 1852. The statement of claim alleged that the CroAvn grant Avas issued to Thomas Graham, from whom it had come, through A^arious OAvners, to ■ the plaintiff. Henry C. Brewer, Registrar of the Supreme Court, produced the will of Thomas Graham - nurseryman, bequeathing his property to his Avife. The will Avas dated the same day as the death of Thomas Graham, gar--1 deuer. Mr BreAver also put in the bankruptcy petition of James Stodart. E. S. Withers, Clerk in the, Lands Transfer Office, produced a conveyance from Mrs E. Graham to J. T. Boylan, dated 1858; a conveyance from J. T. Boylan to, Jane Stoddart, dated 1872; and a deed of dedication of road by J. T. Boylan, dated 1564. 'Mr Campbell put in a conveyance from the. Official Assignee- to Mary Hannah Stoddard (after Stoddard's bankruptcy), and a conveyance from the latter to one Bevan, dated 1896. Mr Cooper admitted the. execution of the two last documents, but denied that the Official Assignee had any estate in the property. Frank Davidson, accountant, produced a conveyance of the property from C. A. Bevan to the plaintiff Hughes. The written evidence of Mr Foster, surveyor, was put. in. He said the property claimed by Mr Hughes was that mentioned in the conveyance from Boylan to Stoddard. Mr Campbell put in a conveyance of Swift Avenue from the Official Assignee to Matilda Stoddard. Percy Harold Hughes, son, of the plaintiff, deposed to the events of 30th March last, Avhen the defendants and others removed plaintiff's fence on the | land in question, cut the chain on the [gate, and did other rlamasfe. j Yesterday afternoou eA-iclence for tlie plaintiff was also .given by Adam Brock, Cecil Hughes, A. E. Hughes, R. Wilson, Wm. Thorne, H. N. Warner and others. Mr Brock was called to identify tlie signature of Mr Marstou, solicitor, to a conveyance from Mrs Graham, Avhich Marston signed as attorney. The signature to the conveyance, the witness said, Avas not like M'arston's signature.