DISTRICT COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 743, 5 February 1873, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Queenstown,—2J4Tri Janulbt, 1873. (Before His Honor Jucfoe Gray.) Wenkheim v. Bbidoe—Mr Turtori for plaintiff; Mr Barton for defendant. Mr Barton said he wished to make application for a new trial of the case, or to set aside present proceedings. His Honor—On what grounds? ~ Mr Barton—On the following grounds : \l. 'that, at the trial of above mentioned action the judge misjudged on a material point of law, to wit, in deciding that the absence of a valid agreement, under the Statute of Frauds, entitled the purchaser to recover tha deposit paid on the purchase. 2. That the judge further l misjudged on a material point of law, to wit, in deciding that an action to receive the deposit paid to an auctioneer on the purchase of lands be maintained against the vendor in the first instance. 3. That, at the trial of the above mentioned action, it was hot proved by the plaintiff that the amount sded for as deposit had been paid by the plaintiff td the defendant, or to his agent. His Honor consented to a new trial. Mr Turton—Bridge said that the receipt produced was a receipt for the purchase. Counsel thought it was only fair that he should have a copy of the notice. Air Barton promised to serve the notice as requested.

Saturday, January 2oth. Roebuck v. Maclarn.— £2OO damages for summary ejectment. This case was continued from previous day. Mr Turton for plaintiff; Mr Barton f-»r defendant. Mr G. B. Vause, sfcddler, QueenstoWn, (examined by Mr Turton)—lien ted to .Roebuck the section in which lie (llOebuck) had his shop. Barnes gave witness written authority to do so (authority produced). The rent was not to exceed 5s per week. Cave Rebuek possession on the first Monday in June last. Had not demanded any rent, nor received any money. Had had meat from him, but had not yet squared accounts. The property was one under offer of sale to him. Karnes could not give a good title, therefore did not purchase. Cross-examined—l can't say who wrote the authority produced. Harnes went into his office, at Caversham, and returned with the authority. It is an authority to let only. Had received letters from Karnes, and could produce them. Mr Birton pointed out that the signature to authority, and letter produced, and .Vlaclarn's title did not correspond, i Mr Turton- -The signature to Madam's document has not been proved, and the document had not been duly stamped. His Honor —If Barnes handed the letter to Vause the signature does not matter. We are nnproaching very ne?r the question of title. The document does not give a good u:le. Mr Barton—lt is only required to give a color of title in order to meet the jurisdiction of the Court. His Honor—One person cannot put another out of possession without a perfect title. If you raise a bona fide dispute I cannot have jurisdiction. Mr Turton—The document is an agreement to give a title. His Honor If I were trying the document or the title, I could not admit it. I thiuk it is an agreement under the Statute of Frauds. An argument ensued as to admitting an unstamped document as evidence; and als • respecting Barnes having become insolvent at the time. Mr G. B. Vause, was also further examined and re-examined at considerable length. Mr Maclarn was placed in the box to prove that he had paid money fur the property, when Mr Turton objected to produced leceipt unless duly stamped. The objection was overruled by the Judge. During examination and crossexamination of Maclarn, further argument ensued, when His Honor said I am of opinion tint Maclarn went into possession of the premises occupied by Roebuck ; and ihat he had a right to do so. His defence is not a mero sham. The question is one of title, and I conceive that 1 have no right to try it. Plaintiff is non*suited.