SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XXXV, Issue 4823, 19 January 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PSIUS.

Tttesdat, Jasttaby 18. [Before hi§ Honor Mr Justice Johnston J His Honor took hie seat at 10 a.m. AXXAH V STANBTTBY. In thi« case A. D. M. Allan wae plaintiff and J. F. Stanbury defendant. The declaration of the plaintiff was to the effect that the defendant had entered npon a section of land at little River, and burnt and destroyed certain fences. The plaintiff claimed the land as his freehold, which was denied by the defendant, who held a section on the opposite side of the road to the plaintiff. The present action wee bronght to recover £500 a> damages on account of an alleged trespass committed by the defendant. The defendant denied all the material allegations, and pleaded a denial of the ownership by plaintiff, alleging that the land was the property of the defendant. Mr George Harper, with him Mr Reeves, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt, with him Mr James Struthen 'Williams, for the defendant. The main question in dispute was the boundaries between the respective seotions of the plaintiff and defendant, and a great deal of evidence was led on both sides. The plaintiff's case having olosed, Mr Joynt called evidence for the defendant. After some argument, His Honor suggested that the learnei coumel should endeavor to make some arrangement. There was no question of principle involved,- it was merely a question of boundaries, which might be settled by arrangement rather than have harassing, exhaustive and expensive litigation. From his twenty years' experience in the colony he found that the titles of a large amount of land in New Zealand were totally non-existent. He thought that the matter should be settled by a little mutual concession. Mr Harper said that the land in dispute was not worth £10. Mr Joynt eald that when the case first came under his notice he had urged a settlement. Mr Harper said that the terms of the settlement was the restoration of the land and the fences, and the payment of expenses of plaintiff. Mr Joynt suggested that Mr Mclntyra and Mr Hay, the Government surveyor, should meet and settle the matter. Mr Harper agreed to this being done. His Honor said that he thought that legislation would be required at no distant date providing for cases of this kind being settled by a tribunal of arbitration. The case was then withdrawn from the jury by consent, on the following terms :— That the question of money be referred to Messrs Hay and Mclntyre, with power to appoint an umpire if necessary, to decide whether the portions of the fence destroyed are within the Crown grant in plaintiff's possession. If the parts of the fence destroyed be found to be partially or wholly upon the road described as between the sections, the plaintiff not to pay costs, but hie costs to be paid. On the application of Mr Harper the jury were discharged. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. on Wednesday.