NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

New Zealander, Volume 2, Issue 61, 1 August 1846, Page 3

NEW ZEALAND COMPANY.

It is the continual dropping of the water that hollows the adamantine rock, and it is also the continual and reiterated appeal to reason and to facts, that must eventually succeed in making an impression upon the stolid indifference with which the crying evils of the day are too often regarded. We, therefore, subjoin another link to the chain of evidence which we have already advanced upon the deceptive character of the system of the New Zealand Company.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,—Jan. 30. Sittings in Banco, healy v. young and another* In this case a rule nisi to examine witnesses in New Zealand had been obtained on a former day. It appeared that the plaintiff and five other persons had emigrated from Ireland to New Zealand in the month of February, 1840, having previously entered into a'contract with the New Zealand Company, of which the defendants «ere members, for the sale of lands there. On their arrival abroad they found no land allotted, and that the company had none to give. To obtain any redress in New Zealand the plaintiff and his co-emigrants entirely failed whereupon the plaintiff, leaving his family in New Zealand, returned to this country, and having made several unsuccessful applications to Her Majesty's, Secretary for the colonies, at last brought the present action. There were several pleas alleging the due performance of the contract on the part of thedefen ■ dants. The affidavit on which the rule w"as moved was that of the defendant Young, which stated that the evidence of v?itnesses then absent' in New Zealand, but who were not named, was material to the trial of the present action, as the deponent really believed and was advised. There was no affidavit to the same effect by the defendants' attorney, nor by the person who advised the defendants. On the part of the plaintiff, the affidavits of himself and several others were produced, and in them it was stated that there were a number of pei sons (whose names were given) in England as capable of giving all necessary information as any person in New Zealand—Mr. Sergeant B)les, and Mr. Sergeant ■Wilkins showed cause against the rule j and Sir Thomas Wilde, argued in support of it. —The Court* said this was a fair case, and one in which

the defendants should have a commission to examine witnesses, and ought not to be driven to select their witnesses from amongst persons in this country. At the same time an aflidarit must be filed by the attorney, stating that he believes the evidence to be material, and and so advised the defendants, and with that condition the rule should be made absolute.— Rule granted ac cordingly.