IN BANCO.

Press, Volume XXX, Issue 4077, 21 August 1878, Page 5 (Supplement)

IN BANCO.

["Before their Honors "dr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams ] XB—PTHOKJJS V LOXTISBON. This case was ordered to stand over, Mr Joynt being out of town. GBBBH (AtPBU-HT) V PBTEB PBKDKB (BESPOSDBST). A similar adjournment was made in this case. COTrj-xSGHAM- V DAT*!*. This case was ordered to stand over. • LAEfD TBASSFBB ACT ATTD BB CAVHAT OF G. BOBEBTB. This was a case in which a caveat had been ; entered by Mr Roberts against dealing with a certain piece of land therein described. A rule nisi had been granted on 13th April calling npon Mr Garrick to show cause why a caveat, loig'd with the district land r-eistrtr oi the 20tVi MVcb, a* affecting fectioi s 479, 480, 481, a«d 482 should not he removed, on two grounds (1) that the grounds upon which such caveat was lodged are not grounds upon which a caveat can be lodged; (2) that tha caveat was false in substance. Mr Gairick appeared to show cause against the role. Mr Xravers eonirx, and in support of the rule. *_r Garrick opened his case by reading certain affidavits sworn by George Eiberts as to the nmking of an agreement for the conveyance <-f th? sections nam-d t<> him by one J. How+rd Wallace, the vendor of the said sections. Affidavits we-e put in from M> Travers, detailing the history of the case, and affirming tbat the said Roberts had not kept his engagement with the said Wallace, and tbat tbe agreement entered into with Wallace was off, and that, suoh being the case, tbe sale to one Newton Coleridge was bona fide. He (Mr Garrick) submitted that the affidavit oi Mr Travers was of no use whatever, because it did not speak to msttera W hin his own knowledge ; it was all trom belief and information. He submitted very strongly that Mr Travers' affidavit was utterly worthless as regarded the issues before the Court. He might say that he had sworn an affiiavit that he had issued a writ against both Roberts and Coleridge for colourable collusion as against Wallace. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston asked whether the proceeding by caveat was not bated upon something which Mr Garrick had not yet established, bnt would have to do. Mr Grarrick said that he had only to establish a prima facie case when the caveat would become an interlocutory injunction. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston asked —hether under tho circumstances, the argu_eat would not be useless, a? Mr Garrick's great point would be to establish fraud, which. It: now proposed to do before a jury by an action. Would not Mr Garrick be entitled to ask for an interim injunction until the case was heard. Mr Travers said tbat he was willing to give an undertaking before the Court that if the caveat was removed, and his learned friend filed a bill for an injunction, nothing ehould be done with the land pending the remit of the action now pending. He would however desire to point out that if Mr Roberts felt that he had been deprived of his property by fraud he had his remedy, because the Act of 1876 had provided for the recovery of all the Ttdue of tbe property from the Assurance Fond. But Mr Roberts had barred himself from taking advantage of this clause, because he had not registered bis contract. Some argument took place between tbe learned coun-el as to the costs of the application, but ui'imately Mr Garrick declined to accept the offv-r made hy Mr Travers. After bearing argument on both sides, Their Honors reserved judgment.