Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LAW REPORTS

FULL COURT CITY CORPORATION V. A. & T. BURT, LTD. Tlic Full Court sat yesterday morning to hear a case brought by the Wellington City Corporation against A. and T. Burt, Ltd., for alleged misuse of part of York Street, a blind street running caetward ofl Taranaki Street to Town Aero 246. The Bench was occupied by the Chief Justice (Sir Jlobcrt Stout), and Their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards. Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Biui, and Mr. Justice Stringer. Mr. John OlSliea (City Solicitor) appeared for the Corporation, and Mr. A. S. Adams, Dunedin, and Mr. B. If. Kndlay for the defeudant company.

The case had come before Mr. Justice Hosking about a year ago, and had been held over for tbo full Court to deal with. The Corporation contended that the defendant company, prior to December 21, 1914, erected a barricade about half-way down York Street, and enclosed tho part of tbo street lying to iho east of the barricade, incornoratinc Buch part of tbo street with lanos owned by the company on both sides. Defendants declined to accede to the request of tho Corporation to remove the barricade (a fenco with a gate in it), and continued to ueo tho part enclosed lor tho purpose, of storing iron pipes and other material. Tho Corporation therefore asked the Court to declare that York Street is, for its full length, a "street" as defined in tho Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, and to enjoin upon the company the removal of the barricade.

Tiie company claimed that tho pieco of land enclosed was not any part of a

"street" as defined in the Act, and also that no part of tho said pieco of land was veeted in the Corporation for any estate. The erection of the fence was admitted, but it was contended that tho company, being the registered proprietor of Sectlou 246, had erected the barricade on tho western boundary of thn section, and that the land enclosed was included in tho certificate of title to tho section owned by the company in fee Blmplo. The hearing was not concluded wlien tho Court rose.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19170703.2.101

Bibliographic details

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3126, 3 July 1917, Page 9

Word Count
355

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3126, 3 July 1917, Page 9

LAW REPORTS Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3126, 3 July 1917, Page 9

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert