SUPREME COURT

Grey River Argus, 8 September 1934, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

SITTING AT GREYMOUTH. The Supreme Court sitting at Greymouth was resumed yesterday before Air Justice Johnston. An adjournment was made until Monday in an appeal from the decision in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, wherein Maurice Moore, of Stillwater, bushman, and Kate Moore, of Stillwater, wife of Maurice Moore, appellants, and James Dean Brosnan, of Wellington, civil servant, were the parties. Air J. AV. Hannan appeared under instructions from Mr A. H. Paterson for 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 Alay 22, 1934, before Air 11. Morgan, S.AI. 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 appellants to pay costs amounting to £8 2s 2d.

Mr Hannan said it was a case on appeal on law. 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 Jiving on a farm, mortgaged by Aloore’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 Countv 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 Atember fo r the District on Thursday. Counsel recognised that he could not urge anything on the law at the present position. Tlp asked that the matter be adjourned until Monday. Air Kitchingham said 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 Afondav, providing it would then bp definitely decided. His Honour agreed to the adiournment. 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. Tt did not sppm that appellants had anv stand in iho matter regarding the title—none other than possession or licence from the sister. So far ns the road was concerned that, did nn+ have a. license at all. He would allow the matter to stand down, but the other side was entitled to finality on Monday. DIVORCE ACTION. A petition for dissolution of his marriage with Sarah Jane Hart, of Runanga. was entered by Herbert Henrv Hart, of Reefton, foreman (Air W. P. AfcCarthy).

The action was undefended. The grounds wore that respondent on August 15, 1931. wilfully deserted the petitioner without just cause, and for three vears onwards tn the present time had continued to desert the petitioner without just cause. Petitioner rave evidence, stating that he married respondent on August 13. 1912. nt St. Thomas’s Church. Runanra. At’ter the marriage thev lived at Runnnn-a. Repfton, Foxton. Auckland Tnuranga, Kumarn and" Rannhop and there were three children of the Tnarriae-p, two sons and a daughter. Since deserting petitioner, on Au<nist 15. 1931. respondent had not. lived with petitioner.

Fvelvn Bervl Curtis gave supporting evidence. A decree nisi granted, tn be made absolute after three months. WRIT OF MANDAMUS. An application was made for a writ of mandamus requesting the AVarden (Afr Henry Aforgan, S.AI.), to hear and determine an application bv James Stanley Langford, of Hokitika, engineer (Afr L. E. Aforgan), for a declaration that the tail-race owned by the defendant. Thnmas McGrath, of Kumarn, storekeeper (Afr J. W. Hannan), had been abandoned bv 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 bv plaintiff. The present application for a mandamus was to compel the Warden to hear such application a.s plaintiff now that + he Warden had jurisdiction tn hear the application. After lengthy le<ml arn-nment. bv both counsel. His TTnnnur said he would look into the points raised, and