LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1603, 21 November 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. HUTT BOROUGH COUNCIL. A LAND DISPUTE. Au important question as to the power of corporations to hold land was involved in a claim for possession which was heard in tiio Supreme Court yesterday before the Chief Justico (Sir Hubert Stout). Tho plaintiff in tlio action was the Lower Hutt Corporation, and tho defendants were Ednioud Hayes, retired builder, Patrick Cassy, retired publican, and I'ranfc Meyrick, baiter, all of Lower liutt. Mr. C. it. Treadwell appeared for tho corporation, while Mr. T. i\ Martin appeared ior the defendants. 11l tlio statement ol' claim it was alleged that by virtue of a certificate of tiiio issued under tlio Land Transfer Act on November 13, 1911, tho Lower Hutt Corporation was the owner ill fee simple of certain laud (part of Section 25) in Uio Hutt district. Tlio delendants, Hayes and Casey, wero now in possession of that land, and on a portion of it they had erected a shop and dwelling, now oceupicil by tho defendant, Meyrick. Tho defendants refused to deliver up tho lands, and the corporation, therefore, claimed possession anil .CIOO mcsuo protits. By way of defenco, Hayes, Casey, and Meyrick denied tho corporation's title to tho land, and also denied liability for "mesne" profits. Defendants said.that if tho corporation proved the certificate of litlo tlieii tho land comprised therein would consist of certain streets shown oil tho subdivision!)! >plan of what was known as the Martin Estate, and marked 011 the deposited plan in 1878. These streets had never been taken over by the local authority, nor had any right of user arisen. Defendants (Hayes; Casey, and Meyrick) also alleged that the action was not now being brought in the interests of the ratepayers, but rather for tlio purposes of tho Hutt Bowling and Tennis I Club, to whoso land the roads would give access. ' !' Another case—the Lower, Hutt Borough Council v. Miriama Hoketa—involved similar points, anil it was agreed that both actions should be heard together. After Mr. Treadwell had called evidence, Mr. Martin submitted lengthy argument in favour of a nonsuit. Ho stated, however, that his clients would prefer to have tho question finally settled. His Honour said that as tho question appeared to bo of considerable importance, the better course would probably be for Jlr. Martin to_ call what evidence he had, and tho question of removing tho action into the Court of Appeal could then be considered. > . Mr'. Treadwell intimated that he\would be quite agreeable to such a course. Jividence for the defence ''haying been tendered, his Honour made an order removing tho case into the Court of- Appeal for argument. MAGISTRATE'S DECISION RE•VERSED. ; MASON, STRTJTHERS AND CO.' V. SHAW, SAVILL AND ALBION COSomething like finality was reached yesterday in tho case between Mason,. Struthers, and Co;, Ltd.,' and the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd., which .first, camo on for hearing in tho Magistrate's Court twelve months ago. After coming before the supreme Court on appeal it wits remitted to the magistrate. The ultimate decision of his Worship (Dr. A. M'Arthur) did not satisfy the plaintiffs, and last week tho case again came up in the Supremo Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). It took the form; of a case on appeal. The plaintilfs are ironmongers in Christcliurcli, and the de-, fendants are tho well-kffown shipping company. \ ' • At tho hearing Mr. A.- Blair appeared for tlio .plaintiffs; and. Mr. AY. .H. D.'.BelL; for the defendants.' ' " ( ' The original claim of tho plaintiffs was for the recovery of 2s. 6d; as tho amount of damage alleged to havo been done to* wire whilo the wire was being shipped from Liverpool to New Zealand aboard-the steamer Pakeha. ' When tho caso was bofore him on tho first occasion, Dr. M'Artliur non-suited tho plaintiffs on the ground that the' cause of tho damage apparently camo within the exceptions stated on the bill of lading. The plaintiffs appealed against, tho decision of the magistrate, and the' Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) decided that .the nonsuit should not have, been entered, as the .magistrate had not found 'which "exception" was applicable. . , The. case, was therefore remitted to the magistrate, it being understood that either side might call further evidence. v 1 The case was re-opened on September 12 last, when Mr. Bell, for defendants, called Dr. Maclaurin,, tho Dominion Analyst, who deposed that he had examined'the wire, and was of opinion that the damage had been caused by salt. There were, he added, no sulphates present such as would indicate that tho damago was due to sea water. Subsequently Dr. M'Arthur, ,S.M., gave judgment for defendants, and it was from this decision that the plaintilfs (Mason, Struthers, and Co., Ltd.) last week appealed on the ground that it was erroneous as to finding of fact and in point of. law. In his judgment, delivered yesterday morning, his Honour upheld ihe appeal, anil ordered judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs (Mason, Struthers, and Co.) for the amount of damages agreed upon, together with costs in both Courts. Mr. Bell asked for leave to appeal. His Honour promised to consider the' matter, and see whether the points of law involved were substantial enough for an appeal to bo allowed.