SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 7 September 1934, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

GREYMOUTH SESSION. The quarterly session of the Supreme Court, in Greymouth, was resumed to-day, Mr Justice Johnston presiding. An appeal from the judgment of the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, on an action wherein Maurice Moore, of Stillwater, bushman, and Kate Moore, of Stillwater, .wife of Maurice Moore, appellants, and Janies Deen Brosnan, of Wellington, civil servant, respondent, was adjourned till Monday. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared, under instructions from Mr A. 11. Paterson, lor appellants, and Mr F. A. Kitchingham, under instructions from a Wellington firm of solicitors, appeared for respondent. The original action was heard in the Magistrate’s Court, at Greymouth, on May 22, 1934, before Mr H. Morgan, S.M. The Magistrate, on June 5, 1934, gave judgment for respondent, possession ■warrant to issue, to give possession by appellants, to respondent, of 34 perches, being section 3670, Block X, Mawheranui S.D., and being the whole of the land in Certificate of Title 35/135 Westland Register; and ap.pellants to pay costs amounting to £B/2/2. Mr Hannan stated that it was a case on appeal on law from a case stated by the Magistrate. The only ground was that the S.M. did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The position was somewhat complicated. The facts were that appellants were living on a farm, mortgaged by Moore’s sister, to respondent. The house was not built on the farm lands, but on a road reserve. The mortgagee called up the mortgage, and sold the land, but that did not affect the house. An application was then made to the County Council to close the road, but the County refused. Ultimately, by Order-in-Council, the road was closed, and a Certificate of Title under the Land Transfer Act was issued in the name of respondent. That title included the house. As to how the Order-in-Council was secured, it was not known to appellants, who were much concerned as a consequence. They had been in communication with the Department, and had received a telegram from the Member for the District, only yesterday. Counsel recognised that he could not urge anything on the law at the present position. He asked that the matter be adjourned until Monday. Mr Kitchingham said that the matter was plain, from his point of view. He was acting under instructions from Wellington, and could not take the responsibility of an adjournment. Appellants considered they had a case, but counsel did not consider they had. Appellants never had the land," and the present respondent purchased the mortgage from his wife. Counsel was prepared to allow the matter to stand over, till Monday, providing it would then be definitely decided. His Honor agreed to the adjournment, adding that he could not see how it could possibly help appellants. The Court could not go behind the Certificate of Title in the present proceedings. It. did not seem that appellant had any stand in the matter regarding the title—none other’ than possession or license from the sister. So far as the road was concerned, that did not have a license at all. He would allow the matter to stand down, but the other side was entitled to finality on Monday.

IN DIVORCE. Herbert Henry Hart, of Reefton, foreman, petitioned for dissolution of his marriage with Sarah Jane Hart, of Runanga, on the grounds that respondent, on August 15, 1931, wilfully deserted the petitioner without just cause, and for three years and upwards to the present time, had continued to desert the petitioner without just cause. Mr W. P. McCarthy appeared for the petitioner, the case being undefended. Evidence was given by petitioner, who stated that he married respondent on August 13, 1912, at St. Thomas’ Church, Runanga. After the marriage petitioner and respondent lived at Runanga, Reefton, Foxton, Auckland, Tauranga, . Kumara, and Rapahoe, and there were three children of the marriage, two sons and a daughter. Since deserting petitioner On August 15, 1931, respondent had not lived with petitioner. Evelyn Beryl Curtis supported the evidence of petitioner. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months. WRIT OF MANDAMUS SOUGHT. James Stanley Langford, of Hoki*ika, engineer (Mr Morgan) and Thomas McGrath of Kumara, storekeeper (Mr J. W. Hannan) defendant. in an application for a writ of mandamus requesting the Warden (Mr H. Morgan, S.M.), to hear and determine an application by the plaintiff for a declaration that the tailrace owned by defendant had been abandoned by operation of law, and that the license therefore be cancelled. The Warden declined to hear plaintiff’s application in the Warden’s Court, on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the application, as the correct procedure was not adopted by plaintiff. The present application for a mandamus was to compel the Warden to hear such applica- 1 tion as plaintiff now alleged that the Warden had jurisdiction to hear the application.

Lengthy legal argument was heard by His Honor, from both counsel, after which His Honor said ho would look into the points 'submitted by counsel and would deliver his decision later.