THE PLAGUE HOSPITAL SITE

Evening Post, Volume LIX, Issue 112, 12 May 1900, Page 6

THE PL A GUE HOSPITAL SITE

•FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IX THE SUPREME COURT. The ca.se Solicitor-General, on the relation of James WiLson v. the Mayor and Corporation of Wellington, in which it is sought to have the leas,e recently 'granted first to the Town Clerk and subsequently to the Local Board of Health 'for the purposes of a site for a plague hospital set aside, same before the full bench of Judges oi the Supreme Court 'again this morning. Messrs. Skerrett and Wilford appeared in support of the objection, and the 'City Solicitor (Mr. T. F. Martin) and Mr. M. Luckie appeared for the Corporation. 1 The amended pleadings of the abjections filed by permission of the Court, 'set out that since the oomm en cement of •the action defendants have, in purported pursuance of the power of leasing, executed a lease of the site of the proposed 'plague hospital to Joseph ELett Page, 'for the term of three year:* from the 7th •May, 1900, at the rental of £3, and subject to other conditions and restrictions. 'The lease purports to giant to the lessee the exclusive right of occupation and enjoyment of the land. The lessee has further declared by deed that he will, during the continuance of the term, hold the> land in trust .for the Local Board of 'Health for the city of Wellington. Plainiiff contends that the power of lease con'teiined in the deed of conveyance is ultra •vires of the Wellington City Reserves 'Aot, 1871, which authorised the Superintendent of the Province of \vellington to convey certain lands, of which the land comprised in the lease is part, to defendants to ho.d the same upon such utility as should by the deed ois contrusts and for such, purposes of public veyance be expressed, and the statute did not authorise the granting of a power to lease in the terms of the deed of conveyance so as to exclude the right of the inhabitants of the city of < . ellington to 'the use and enjoyment of the land. 'Plaintiffs claim that the deed is void •upon the following grounds* — (1) That It has been executed pursuant to the power of leasing contained in the deed of conveyance, which power is void ; (2) that defendants, as trustees under the deed of conveyance, are disabled from leasing the land to themselves, or to -any person in trust for themselves ; (3) 'that section 224 of the Municipal Corporations Act 1886 restricts, defendants 'from leasing the land so as to restrict 'the public in the use and enjoyment of it as is done in and by the deed of lease. 'Plaintiffs accordingly ask (a) that it may 'be declared that the erection of the buildings is a breach of trust, and that 'the Town. Bekb can only be -used for tlie purposes of a public recreation ground ; '(b) that defendants may be restrained by 'injunction or order from proceeding with •the erection of the buildings ; (c) that an injunction or order be granted requiring defendants to forthwith remove any part of the buildings which may 'already have been erected on the land ; '(d) that t^ie power of lease contained in 'the deed of conveyance be declared void 'and be rectified by expunging the power 'of leasing, and the deed as varied be declared to take effect in like manner as 'if the power of leasing hiad been omitted 'at the time of its execution by the parties to it; (c) that the deed of lease to 'J. E. Page be declared void and ordered 'to be canceMed; and (f) that defendants have such other relief as the Court may see fit to grant. Mr. Skerrett, in the course of his argument, contended -that the power of lease was inconsistent with the declared 'trust, because it authorised the complete exclusion of tha public from the land. 'The land was set apart for the public 'use, and nab for the purposes of an enclowment. Further, it was clear law that a trustee could not lease to hiniseif or 'even by his agent .for another. Mr. Wilford argued tnat there was an absolute prohibition from leasing in the 'manner proposed. The City Solicitor said that while the other side contended that the land was in tnist for a recreation ground, the Corporation said the trust was one of pubUc utility. The deed declared primarily that it was a trust for the purposes of "leasing, the proceeds of that 'leasing to be applied to certain purposes ; and, secondly, that the land was 'to be .applied to the purposes of a recreation ground. He was not piepared to go the length suggested by the Chief Justice that the land might be sold, or let for 999 years. As to the question of 'trusteeship, the Local Board of Health, ■being distinct from the Corporation, and 'having separate functions and powers, 'the rule .as to a trustee executing power of fleg^e to himself did not apply kere. Mr. Luckie argued -that this was a proper case for exception to the rule, prohibiting a trustee from leasing to 'himself. There was authority for ex'eeptions. As regards the contention that 'the lease was void, .he was prepared to *g.o >the length of arguing that if the pow•or of 'ease was lo go, the, trust of the 'land for recreation purposes being in the Used of lease, must also go. The Chief Justice— Then the Corporation waivts to lo.«e its Town Belt? • The City Solicitor— lt wants to win 'this case, your Honour. Mr. Skerrett having replied, Mr. Luc'kie put in a, statement of the Town Clerk 'to the effect that the hospital was now 'practically completed, and the amount '.spent upon it to date was approximately 'J3600. The Court reserved decision.

A total of 2510 rats has been purchased by the City Council. The following coal-mining managers have been appointed by the Mines Department to enquire into the best means of suppressing the fire -which has been j burning for some time past iv the Cardiff coal mine, We<='tport: — Mes«rs. Shore (Kaitargata), Allison (Greymoulh), and Foster (Dennislon).