SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2906, 19 October 1916, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

Mr. Justice Chapman presidod at the Supreme Court yesterday' and delivered reserved pudgments. MOKAU COMPANY'S LEASES. Judgment was delivered in the matter of tho -memorandum of lease from Hangiliuia Kingi and others and To Marohau and others to the Mokau Coal and Estates Co., Ltd., of part of Mangapapa 8., No.' Block. The case was stated for the opinion of the Court by the AVailcato-Maniopoto District Jlaori Land. Hoard, pursuant to Section 91 of tho Native Land Amendment Act, 1913. The leases contained a covenant providing for written notice of request for renewal. The Mokau Company refrained from giving the notices because the Native owners liad at tho request of the company agreed to forthwith grant the renewed leases contemplated by tho original leases. Tho company's application was for the : confirmation of the new leases. Counsel for the Land Board objected that the second lease involves a new contraot becauso-it was not issued pursuant to a notice,, and did not strictly conform to tho right of the lossees under the original lease. The judgment was that the leases did not require confirmation; also that t.lie case did not fall within Section 224 calling on the board to confirm as of right, as that section only refers to cases whan the prior! instrument has been duly confirmed under the Act.

A PARTNERSHIP CASE. Judgment was also delivered'in tho case Wm. Edward Redstone v. Henry Charles Hunter. The Court was asked to answor certain questions arising out of a transaction at the time Mr. G. L. Bannatyne was retiring from the firm of Bannatyno and Hunter, merchants. His Honour said that the questions asked might be answered by saying that the formation of the company did not detennino or supersede the terms of a clause of the agreement, which required tho defendant to procure the appointment of plaintiff as director during tho continuance of tho company, if the plaintiff so required; the alternative being that the defendant is liable to make cood the plaintiff's loss. Mr. M. F. Luckic appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. T. Young for tho defendant. LAND AGENTS AT LAW. Mr. Justice Chapman yesterday heard a case on appeal, in which E. li. Hare, land agent, of Pahiatua, was the appellant, and W. Lingard, land agent, Wellington, the respondent. The appeal was from a decision of Mr! D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., who had given judgment for Lingard for £25 on a claim for half commission on the sale of a property at Pahiatua effected by Hare. The basis of Lingard's claim was that ho had introduced to Hare tho • purchaser. : Tho appeal was made on the ground that the Magistrate had wrongly decided tho question of fact, and_ also that the matter had been previously determined by arbitration of the Land Agents' Associatiipn at Wellington, who had : decided the matter in favour of Hare. On behalf of the respondent, it was claimcd that the arbitration of Land Agents' Association was indecisive and that the matter was left open for decision by the Court. Dot cision was reserved. Mr.- T. Neave appeared for appellant, and 51r. Douglas Jackson for the respondent.