LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6061, 21 April 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Circuit Sittings. Wednesday, 20th Aran,. [Before Mr. Justice Richmond and « Common Jury.] The civil business of the Quarterly Circuit Court was commcnccd this morning. His Honor took his seat on the Bench at 10 o'clock. Fitzgerald v. White.—Mr. E. Kesketh appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant, although he was represented during an earlier stage of the case —viz., an argument on demurrer. The plaintiff purchased a block of land from the defendant, a native —a block of land called Okahukuru No. 1, in the Kaipara. These was some understanding, according to the defendant, that a certain piece of land was reserved to the defendant, but he selected and occupied a portion which interfered with the plaintiff s enjoyment of his right. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of this piece of land. There were four issues for the jury. 1. Was the piece of land in the declaration mentioned granted (by Crown grant) to the plaintiff, his heirs, and assigns, &c. ? 2. Was the plaintiff, at the time of action brought, the owner of the fee simple ? 3. Was the plaintiff wrongfully on the land, i and cultivating there ? 4. Did the plaintiff repeatedly give up possession of the land ? Thomas Edward Fitzgerald, the plaintiff, was examined, and deposed to the facts set out in the declaration and the issues. There was no claim for mesne profits. The jury, without retiring from the box, returned a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues. Seymour t. Hutchinson. —Mr. Tyler and Mr. Coleman appeared for the plaiutilF. This was an action to recover possession of a piece of land in Victoria-street with mesne profits (£55). The facts of the case have been published in reports of proceedings in other Courts [Seymour v. Maxwell and others]. The land has a frontage of 28 feet 8 inches and a depth of 113 feet 6 inches. The Crown grant to the plaintiff was dated "June Bth, 1843."—Dr. Shortland proved that he was the agent of Admiral Sir Michael Seymour, from whom he held a power of attorney. He returned i from England in June, 1880, and found one Maxwell in possession. Maxwell was the sub-lessee under Mrs. Maud, who originally held a lease from the plaintiff. The actual amount of mesne profits due from June, 18S0, would be £65, but the claim was only made from August, inasmuch as there was some doubt I as to whether Maxwell or the defendant was I the " master tenant." The rent due from August to date would be £56 10s at 30s aweek, but the claim was made out for £55, as it was believed the case would have come to trial sooner. H. N. Warner, surveyor, proved the area of the ground; H. Walker, clerk to Mr. Coleman, proved the service of the necessary notices on the defendant. No evidence was offered for the defence, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff on all the issues. Jen-kins v. Elliott.—Mr. E. Hesketh for the plaintiff. In this case the record was withdrawn, and the parties agreed tq.go to arbitration, as the matters in difference were wholly matters of account. Referred to arbitration accordingly. MacCormick v. Merrick.—Mr. Tyler appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. E. Hesketh for the defendant. In this case notice countermanding the notice of trial had been given, and it was agreed that the case could not be tried this sitting of the Circuit Court. Tunny v. Brock.—The matters in difference in this action were matters of account. It was announced that the case had been settled out of Court. The Court adjourned to Monday next, at 10 a.m., when the special jury cases will be heard. Bankruptcy. Re John Dalbkth.—Mr. Tyler appeared for the bankrupt. The debtor came up for his discharge. He said he was formerly a farmer at Mangere. He afterwards took a farm at Papatoitoi. He stocked it with borrowed money, and gave a bill of sale over the stock.—His Honor : I observe that you have adopted the practice of having .a report by the trustee in cases of this kind. It is a good practice. I see Mr. Justice Gillies is insisting upon it in other places where the practice does not appear to have prevailed.— Mr. Tyler : I believe that the trustee insists that he shall have a fee for drawing up a report.—The Debtor : I have been brought to this through a claim forcompensation which I made. I might have got through but thatl was harrassed by Mr. Brookfield.—His Honor : I suppose Mr. Brookfield wanted to get his money as holder of the bill-of-sale. I would advise you, and those who trade on borrowed money, not to give a bill-of-sale. If you do so again you will certainly bo here again in the same position. There is no opposition. —Mr. Tyler : Mr. Brookfield has withdrawn any opposition on his part.—His Honor : I do not see any reason for refusing the dobtor in the present instance his discharge. But it is a dangerous thing to trade in this way. It would be better for the debtor and everybody else that he should be a labourer than come before the Court in this way. Discharged.