THE KEKERANGU ESTATE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12585, 21 August 1901, Page 3

THE KEKERANGU ESTATE.

A CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. At the Supreme •Count Civil/Sessions yesterday motriuimg, the dispute regamd&mg itho Kekerangu Estate, Marlborough, was brought before his . HorJoa." Mr Justice Diemnistoia. T!he> plaintiffs were Edmund Scott Rutherford ondl Eva Lydfa Rutherford, sheep-farmers at Kektirangu, Marlborough, amidl the defendant Algernon John Symons. Mr Stringer, with him Mr Lane, appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Harper for the defendants.. The statement of claim set forth that on July 27, ,1899, the-plaintiff, Edmund Scott Rutherford, and Duncan Rutherford, ot Leslie Hills, entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby plaintiff agreed to purchase all the freehold and leasehold estate situated in Marlborough, and known as the Kekerangu Station, comprising 29,029 acres freehold dfid about 90,000 acres of leasehold, .together With all sheep, cattle, and all .station plant and property excepting the vendor's personal property and about a quarter of an' acre used as a family burial ground. The statement alleged that the defendant did not deliver to the plaintiffs all sheep, cattle and stock, and 'that the defendant, on July 27, 1899, and August 24, 1899, damaged the fences aand destroyed and injured part of the gardens, whereby the plaintiffs suffered loss, and the plaintiffs now claimiedi. £364 for the loss of stock and £ls for damage to fences and garden. The statement of defence denied that the defendant 'did not deliver alii sheep and cattle, stock and station plant to the plaintiffs that was on the station. The defendant admitted removing certain horses and things, but claimed that they were his personal rproparty. The defendant also denied that he had "damaged the fences of the station or injured part of the gardens. Mr Stringer,' in opening the case for plaintiffs, referred briefly to the claim. The defendant bad evidently repented of Ms bargain, and had tried to put obstacles in the way of the completion of the purchase. He had at one time demanded that the solicitors for plaintiffs should cart 40,000 gold sovereigns, and personally deliver them to him at Kekerangu Station. Ho had removed a number of bulbs from the gardens. Mr Harper said the removal of bulbs had been committed under the apprehension that they were personal property ; a sum of money had been paid into Court on that account. Mr Stringer, continuing, said the question would largely revolve on what could be designated personal property. His Honor said.it would have been better if the parties could agree as to what might be called personal property. Parties in a case where the property was valued at £40,000 did not usually stick at trifles. Mr Stringer, after consultation with his clients, asked his Honor to allow a short timo in which tho parties would try to come to an' agreement. His Honor consented, and retired from the Bench.

After ten minutes, his Honor returned, and Mr Stringer then said the parties had decided to refer the matter to arbitration. His Honor said it was much better that this course should be followed, and thait the case should be dealt with by some competent, man, able to say what personal property might be reasonably designated in a, caVo of this sort.

Mr Stringer said he would ask that the case should stand over sine die. His Honor agreed.