LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6667, 31 March 1883, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—I* Basco. Friday, March 30. [Ecfore Mr. Justice Gillie 3.] His Honor took his seat oc the bench at eleven o'clock.

W.u.tos t. Tiik ArcKUSD Ttmiser Coirpant, Dr.MCHKt?. to Declaration. —Mr. Theophilus Cooper for the defendants in support of the demurrer ; Mr. E. Hesketh for the plaintiff, in support of the declaration. This was a suit to compel specific performance by the defendants of an agreement to purchase 11.701 acres of land at Omano and '■ Walton's Land," Wairoa North, at 30s an acre (JCJ 7,551), for £2000 cash, and the balance ot the purchase money to be paid in ten :'iinual equal paym nts, bearinc interest at three per cent. The memorandum of proposal to sell was drawu up bv plaintiffs agent, and accepted by the ag' iit for t: e defendants. The price was indicated in the following terms : "At say, 30a an acre. " The declaration set out that the pi.iintiff, by hi 3 agent, John Roberton, agreed to sell, and the defendants, by their ag> nt, George Holdship, agreed to purchase the land up n ,n the terms specified. 'I'he plain"i!F produced a clear title, but the defendants refused to complete the purcha-e, and the plaint-fl therefore came to the Court to ask that specific performance, should be ordered. The declaration was demurred to, on the following grounds:—!. That it did not appear that George Hold-ship, a:; agent for the defendants, was "lawfully authorised thereunto'' to make this contract. 2. That the declaration was bad for uncertainty. 3. That the declaration did not disclose any binding agreement. 4. That it did not appear by the declara'ion tli »t any offer was made by the plaintiff or accepted by defendants.— Mr. Cooper contended that in this case the contract was assumed to arise out of an ofier made by l\lr. Koberton, the plaintiff's agent, to sell, but it wis n"t stated to whom the offer was ma'ie. Hold-hip agreed to purchase 11,701 aces, but there was no description of the land, and the name of the per Eon who was to sel: w;h not named. The terms "at, say, 30-s an acre" left the price wholly undetermined. An agreement to sell between two persons bhoul.l contain sufficient to identify the contracting parties. The identification of the parties, or the land, or the price was not complete. Strictly, tho gr lUnds of the demurrer resolved themselves into two objections to the declaration: 1. That Mr. Holdship was not an agent " authorised hereunto," that is for this vpeci:il purpo3e ; '2. That tho alleged agreement waa bad for uncertainty. There was no allegation that these parties had signed an agreement. The declaration was bad because it did not allege that Holdship was defendant's agent, authorised to make this contract, and second, that the contract was uncertain, and, therefore, not a binding one. There was no statement in the declaration that an offer waa made by the plaintiff which the defendants had accepted. —His Honor : Have you considered whether this company being a limited company, thero was power in the agent to act for this purpose, "except under seal?'' —Mr. Cooper: That I think would be cured by the language of tho Joint Stock Companies Act, which recognises any express or even an implied authority to an agent. — Mr. E. Hesketh contended that the offer and the acceptance, even if they were oil two separate pieces of paper, constituted a valid contract: that it was sufficient, if the documents and the ci:cum-.tances showed "a common intent between the parties." There was no uncertainty if it could be. shown that the subject matter of the contract was cb-arly and specifically wihm the knowledge of the contracting parties. The third j.oint was not included within the formal obj- eti.'iis to the declaration.—His Honor : Uu the main question uf the sufficiency of the memorandum I am quite clear, but as to the question of the sufficiency of the pleading, i should like to look into the authorities. I ahull deliver judgment at as early a date as possible.

Smith v. JiuooKisi;.—Tup. LicKN.siNt; Act. What is a Fair?— This was an appeal from a decision of the Resident Mr. •J. I'.'. MacdouaM, by which a line of Is was inflicted upon the appellant for selling "a fjlass of beer" at Bucklaud's "sheep-fair." Tho appellant is a licensed publican, and a "conditional lijense" was granted to him by the Remuera Licensing Commissioners under the iiGcb Section of the Licencing Act, which authorised him to sell in the particular places described. "A conditional license shall authorise tho licensee being also the holder of a publican's license to sell and dispose of liquor at any fair, military encampment, reaaita. rowing match, cricket ground, or other plaeo of amusement, &c. ,; —• Mr. E. .hesketh appeared for the appellant ; Mr. Tncophilus (Jooper for the respondent. - His iionor : The rjuestion here is whether thih is a fair within tho meaning of the Act. What is a fair ? Is it a place of auiuseineut?—Mr. Hesketh cited a number of definitions of the word "fair," from Richardson aud other lexicographers.— II:s Honor : It appear* to me that the word "fair" ill'ans a place, where a number of persous assemble to sell their goods direct to each other without tho intervention of an auc.ioueer or It seems to be so, for according to all the accounts we have of a fiir, it would appear that it can be held irrespective of local by-laws, town regulations, or other statutory rules. Is there an auctioneer in this place, and are the things brought there sold directly by those assembling to each other, or are they sold by an auctioneer?—Mr Hesketh : I believe they are. Some people think it necessary this privilege should be given.—His Honor : I tl.ink the contrary. There must be many a bad bargain in such places if it be so.—Mr. TheophilusCooper cited several descriptions of "afair" from old authors.— His Honor : Looking to the section, I think this appeal must be dismissed. I support the opinion of the Judge in the Court below. Appeal dismissed accordingly. I.N" CIIAHIIKK-S,

His Honor sat in Chambers to-day, and disposed of the following applications : — Bavis anu Anotiif.k v. Gko. Staives.— Mr. F. W. Brookfield for tho plaintiff; Mr. A. E. Whitaker for the defendant.— This was an application for a commission to take evidence in England of the plaintiffs as legatees under the will of one John William Heywood, and for an order directing the defendant to pay into Court money in his hands as executor and residuary legatee under tho will of the said John William Heywood. The following aro the facts as deposed to in the atlidavits and stated in the ease -.—The testator was an old man, who resided with defendant and wife up to the time of his death, which occurred in Auckland in IS6S, having money to the extent of between £000 aud £1000. He made a will, appointing the defendant ex-

eeutor and residuary legatee. Under this will several legacies were bequeathed to friends and relatives. There were six legacies of £21 each given to various relatives, and one of £10 given to another person. These legacies the defendant paid. A sum of £"230 was left to George Staines, and .€IOO to Mrs. Staines, which were also paid from the testamentary estate. This made a sum of £461) paid out of the estate. Mr. Staines then tiled a statement to the effect tli.it there remained in his hands a Bum of £450. This would constitute the residuary fund, to which he, in the absence of other claimants, would be entitled. The testator, according to plaintiff, left legacies to his three sisters, Jiliza, Anne, and Mary. The plaintiffs Davis and Lewis are the husbands of two of the sisters, and they claim as legatees. On the part of the defendant, it was contended that there wero ouly two sisters who were entitled to benefit under the will. Some time ago the plaintiffs made an application to be allowed to sue the defendant in Jorhia jniuptri.t, but the application was refused, on the ground that tliere was no |.roof they were not worth £0. The proceedings were not, however, allowed to lap c, and the case came before the Judge, in chambers, as above. His Honor said that the position of the defendant w.s different from that of an ordinary trustee. As executor to the- testator the defendant would appear to have had the testator's conOdenec, and the testator also appointed defendant residuary legatee. In these circumstances he would not make an order as to payment into Court, but he would

grar\t the comniis ion to take evi.leuee in iing'and. Ordered accordingly. Petition in Bankruptcy.—W. Jl.Taine v. Edwin Binney. This was a petition for adjudication in bankruptcy. Mr. Brassey appeared in support of the petition. Mr. Speed, for the alleged debtor, applied for a postponement on tile ground that .'lis brother George Binney was indebted to him in a considerable amount. His Honor enquired of the Registrar if the statement were true. The llegistrar replied that the contrary was the fact ; Mr. E. Binney was indebted to Mr, G.

W. Binney to the extent of £150. Order j made in terms of application. i Laishley ▼. Mobih. —This was an application to enter up judgment in default of plea. —Ordered accordingly. Rowland t. Smith.—Thi3 was an application by Mr. Tole for an order to the defendant to amend counter claim,—Ordered accordingly. Goon'an v. Quinlan. —Mr. E. Hesketh applied for leave to the defendant to file a defence. —Ordered accordingly, upon security given for amount claimed. Probate and Administration'. —Probate was granted of the wills of William Corboy, Joseph Hardy Jefferson. William Valentine Powell, Richard Hudson, Rob-rt Linnett, Janet Bruce, O. S. Ellis, Andrew Brookes, Joseph Wech.—Letters of administration were granted in the estates of S. G. Hawkins, Thomas Brunuer, William C. W hitfield, and Sarah Wood. MEKTIRG OF CREIJITOP-S. Rf. Joun Kemp.—A meeting of creditors in this estate was held yesterii iy. The debtor is a settler at Pukekohe. The liabilities were set down at £410 and the assets at .£412. Mr. A. D. Bennett was elected trustee.

POLICE COURT.—FRIDAY. [Before £1. G. Seth Smith, Esq., R.M.] Drunkenness.—Three persona were fined 4s and costs for this offence. Dkunk and Disoßdhrly.—Mary Ann Burtenshaw was charged with having been drunk and disorderly in < haucery - lane. Defendant pleaded guilty. Fined £2, or in default a month's imprisonment. Vagrancy.—Letitia Hughes was charged with a breach of the Vagrant Act by beir.g a rogue and vagabond and an habitual drunkard. There were many previous convictions rcconUd against defendant, and she was fined £5, or in default one month's imprisonment. Breach of Licensing; Act. — Daniel Scallon was ch-.rged with a breach of the Licensing Act, by supplying liquor to Elizabeth Dedriok, Mary Ann Kdwards, and William Burns, on Sunday, 11th instant. Defendant did not appear. Sergeant White asked that the charges be withdrawn, as a far more serious charge was hanging over defendant, and at the present moineHt he could not be found. Wife Desertion. —William Davis wis oharged with a breach of the Destitute Persona Act, by deserting his wife and children. Mrs. Davis gave eridence, and an order was made for defendant to pay 10s a week towards the maintenance of the children until they arrived at the age of l l- | years. PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT COURT. I [Before Messrs. B. Tonlts, W. I\ Moat, and E. I Proude, Reviewers.]

The adjourned sitting of the Court of Reviewers to hear and determine appeals against the valuations of property under the Property Tax Act, was held yesterday at the R.M. Court. The adjourned business was to hear the appeals from tho North, East, and South Wards of the city. Mr. Crombie, Deputy Commissioner, represented the Government. The following business was disposed of : — Kakasgah.U'K.—The appeal lodged by Mr. Swansou was further adjourned, as wa. | also that of Sir G. M. O'Rorke, trustee in .Shepherd's estate. Aooklanij Noiitii and East.—Mr. Newman was Assessor. Hans Quigley objected to his assessment to property in M.>ore and Chapel Streets. The two frontages, corner lots, were valued at £500. The owner's valuation was £450. but he wculd not seil it at that, or even for i'soo. Tlie valuation was sustained. The name of New Zealand' Timber Company was substituted for tiiat of C. 11. Harris ior property in Customhousestreet. In the case of 11. Flood, property ia Queen-street, the assessment was reduced from £2700 to £2000 by consent. Sir G. M. O'Rorke, trustee for Mrs. Shepherd, objected to the valuation of the property in Jermyn-stn-et, assessed at '£'2000. Sir G. M. O'Korke complained of the unintelligible nature of the notice sent to him, Tho sum £700 was substituted for £2000, anil Mr. Crombie explained that it must have been a clerical error. It was in answer to the • bjeetion, not in the notice of the valuation, to which objection was taken. Mr. Newman was sworn, and examined by Sir G. M. O R >rkc. He was acquainted with the property, and valued it threo years ago. He did not recollect what the valuation then was, but it was considerably lower than the present valuation. Property and residences bad greatly risen in value in that locality, and were eagerly sought after. Whatever his valuation three years ago might have b en, he was prepared to stand by his present valuation. It was a creditable building, quite fit 'or any gentleman to live in. Mr G. M. O'llorke was sworn. He did net believe the trustees would take less than £2000 for th-) property. lie would have taken £2000 for it on the date of the valuation, on the Ist of October, if it had been his own, but of course he could not offer this property without consulting hif) co-trustees. An offer of CSOO was all that was made for it some years ago when it was put up for aalo, ;ind on a previous occasion no ofi'er was received. The valuation was sustained, Walter Lee, Albert-street : Ke- I duceit by consent from £1000 to £SOO. The name E. A. brown, public tru-itee, was substituted for that of John Holland. H. C. Richmond, Nevada Hotel: This case was adjourned in order that a second notice might be served. The executors of Miller and Barclay objected to the valuation. Reduced by consent from £800 to £700. Charles Williamson objected to valuation of his property, £3000, for half interest in a property. It should be one-third, Thcro was was no objection to the valuation of the property, only an adjustment. It was adjourned. Mrs. Waller's appeal was also adjourned for a similar reason. Matthew Slattery objected tbat the property for which hu was in Upper Qiioen-Htrcet did not belong to him, and never had. Mr. Newman explained that it was a ease of the difficulty of tracing the sub-division of property. The name "owner" was substituted for that of Captain Stattery. Mary Pollock objected to valuation, £1100, for property in Victoriastreet West. The house was in a tumbledown state. Mr. James BallaDtine appeared ■ for the appellant, and gave evidence. Mr. Newman also gave evidence. He believed that it would sell ;or £1100. Mr. Ballantine said Mrs. Pollock was prepared to sell at £230. Reduced to £250. Francis Cherry, for trustees of Temperance Hall, Albert-street-, objected to the assessment, £1500, and claimed a reduction to £1000. After hearing Mr. Cherry's evidence, the valuation wjis reduced to £1200. Thomas Wells Marsh appealed against tho assessment of property iu Victoria-street. His tenants' interest was valued at; £040. Tlio valuation was sustained after hearing Mr. Marsh's evidence. Nathan Goldwater's assessment for tenant's inter' st, I £1600, for property in Queen-street, was reduced to £1500. John Hollingsworth's assessment appeal was adjourned. Denis Lynch's assessment was re iuced fvom £1000 to £1500 by consent. Union Oil Soap and Candle Company's appeal ; this was not an appeal against the valuation, but an alteration in the numbers of the allotments, which was assented to by the assessor. In regard to another property the assessment was reduced from £750 to £250. They appealed in another instance, not being tenants of tho property. It was an exchange of allotments, and tho name of Thomas Ingles was inserted instead oftliecompany. Thomas Reach, of Liverpoolstreet, reduced by consent from £800 to £000, and a similar course was adopted in reference to William Hands. Winstonc Brothers, reduced from £400 to £250. Tho name of Leonard Bond was substituted for executors, Messrs. Waddel and another, in respect of two properties in Victoria-street. Charles Stiehbnry's valuation for tenant's interest was reduced from JwOOO to £1000. John E. Luck, Bishop of Auckland, appealed, and the property was exAipted. Mr. Otto objected to his assessment iu Well !ey-atreet and Nelson-street, £1500. After hearing the evidence, the valuation was reduced to £1250. James Ballantine appealed. His assessment was £1000. for property in Victoria-street. He had offered the property twelve months ago for £SOO, but could not get a buyer. Mr. Newman also gave evidence, and the case was adjourned. The name of Kiuharil Arthur was sub-tituted for that of G. W. Owen. Mrs. B. Lusk, per James Baber, assessed at £!iOOO. Case adjourned. Trustees of Mrs. Henry Sommerville, assessed at £ISOO, reduced to £1500, and for another from £750 to £700. 'filename "owner" v/as inserted instead of that of James Callaghan, and the name of Jas. Reid for that of Louis Neumcgan. There were in all 78 objectious in these two wards, but tho greater number were struck out, the appellants not appearing. (After

the adjournment, the balance of tho appeals for City East and City North were heard). | City East.—Rev. Shirley Baker, from £1600 to £1200; Edward. Costley, error in description, corrected ; Robert Kay, reduced to £750. City West.—Thomas Ussher, from £150 to £100: James Reid, reduced to £120; Edward Mahoney, reduced to £1500 ; Oliver Burgess, reduced to £3300; John Warner, reduced to £1000 ; J. and G. Buchanan, reduced from £150 to £125 ; Dr. Kenderdine, from £1600 to £1400 ; Joseph Slator, from £550 to £350; T. W. Leys, reduced from £7uvJ to £650; George Squirrel, £550, valuation sustained ; James Williams, from £340 to £300 ; Allen O'Neill, from £1500 to £1350 ; J. Van Breda, reduced from £650 to £550 ; F. G. Clayton, altered to Airs. Giles' trustees, £650 to £550; Eleanor Johnston, reduced from £SOO to £700 ; Benjamin Crocker, reduced from .£6OO to £350 ; Thomas Constable, £SOO, reduced to £700. Mr. Tonka said as Mr. Woodward had been waiting in Court all day, he would take the case of Mrs. Lushingtou, of East Tamaki, for which he ap-pi-ared. The property was reduced to £3240 from £4320. The Court then adjourned to Thursday three weeks, 26th A pril, at eleven a.m.