SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 330, 17 October 1908, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

..IN CHAMBERS. Sitting in . Chambers were, held yesterday by the Chief Justice'(Sir-Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Chapman. Probate of the wills of the following deceased persons was granted: —David Robertson Reid, retired railway servant, Dunedin; Maria Charlotte Forsyth, widow, Stanley; Timothy Clancy, livery stable keeper, Masterton; Alexander Whitley, farmer, Bromley; ■ William Henry Parker Jones, sheep farmer, Greytown; Frank Buick, farmer, Masterton; Harriet Parke, widow, Waitati; John Hillier, Marton; Malcolm Beresford Snoad, tea merchant, Wellington; John Fabian, hotelkeeper, Woodville; and James Magill, farmer, Clive. . Letters of administration were granted in respect of the estates of the following deceased persons:—Eliza Maria Clark, married woman, Napier (with will annexed); James Henry Parker, sheep farmer, Roxburgh; Joseph Lucas, gardener, Auckland; Thomas Dew, settler, Carterton; Simeon Sills, farmer, Okaliu; Thomas Watson.Corr, ongincer, Wellington; Jane Rushtori, Petone; Frederick William Hunt, joiner, Wellington; 'and Margaret Fletcher, widow, Wellington. A motion to approve an award of "arbitrators in an action begun in the Nelson district between JaWs A. F. Johnson and Ralph Johnson, sawmillers, v. Robertson Brothers, timber merchants, was considered by Mr. Justice Chapman. The claim arose out of accounts, and there was a counter-claim. Judgment was reserved. Sir. Gray (with him ■Mr. Maginnity, of Nelson), represented the plaintiffs, but:'thero was 110 appearance 011 behalf of defendants. GAS COMPANY'S RIGHTS. Tho matter of certain disputes between tho Gas Company and the. City Corporation was mentioned .before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Mr. J. O'Shea, who appcacd on behalf of the Corporation, 'said it was proposed to proceed under the Declaratory Judgments Act to ascertain tho position of the parties with reference to certain questions including the right of tho Corporation to purchase under the Melrose agreement, also whether tho company, could supply the city from Miramar. Would it be possible for. the caso to bo taken at the present sitting of the Court of Appeal? His Honour: I could not say. I am leaving■. Wellington 011 Monday next. .It 1 would be better to ' mention -the matter beforo the Court-of Appeal. After having conferred with Messrs. Brown and Dean, who' are representing the Company, Mr O'Shea informed a Dominion reporter that no application in the matter would bo made until the next sittings of tho Court of Appeal.

(Sir Robert Stout) • when considering an application relating to tho sale of a property which originally belonged to Natives, lhe ■facts were that Mr. Miles, of Marton, solicitor, and his wifo purchased certain land from Native owners. Section sof the /Native Land Act Amendment Act provides that a European purchaser from a Native can hold only a certain area of land. The second purchaser is under Section G in tho same position in' that respect. Mr. and Mrs. Miles made exchanges between themselves of the same land, making tho required declarations, and subsequently sold for value to one Marshall, the original lessee. Mr. Pauling, Examiner of Titles, who appeared on behalf of the District Land Registrar, submitted that Marshall was in reality second purchaser, and should make the required declaration under Section 6, and in consequence tho doalirig of Marshall was void. ' ~,, Mr. B. Brown, for Mr. and Mrs. Miles, said tho exchanges in question were bonafide, and, therefore, they were entitled. to make the necessary declarations. His Honour observed that tho case arose out of tho action of the Government in permitting private negotiations between Natives and Europeans. The.-Natives in this'instance had received £667 less than the price at which tho land was again .sold within a brief period. '.- Mr. Brown: I submit that-tho profit was not out of tho way, considering the amount involved.

His Honour: As I have said before, Native land ought to be sold by, a board or by public auction. lam glad the District Land Regis-trar-sticks those things up.' I shall require affidavits to show that there was no agreement or understanding: between the parties — that this is not simply.atrick, to evade the statute. On tho face of it, the transaction looks suspicious. The;matter may bo mentioned again, when the affidavits are filed.