LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIII, Issue 7772, 19 October 1886, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

t SUPREME COURT.-Civil Sittings. I Monday. * [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.] *■ The oivil sittings of the Supreme Court wet 9 commenced to-day, to deal with the. variou 8 causes of action set down for hearing. Hi > Honor took his Beat on the Benoh at te • o'clock. 8 Mayor and Corporation or Auoklan: fv.W. L. Mitchell.—This was a claim t \ recover the sum of £256 15s 7d for rent. Mi 1 Cotter appeared for the plaintiff and applies " to have judgment entered up in terms of th " confession received. Judgment was entere 7 for the amount of the claim and costs. 8 Scott v. Sims.—This was an action b; 8 Rachel Soott, administratrix of the estate c the late Robert Boyd Soott v. John Adar 8 Sims and another for £200, rent due, am * that accounts be taken. Mr. Cotter ap » peared for the plaintiff, and said that he hai k received notice of a confession for the £20C • The plaintiff was willing to accept this, am > he asked therefore that judgment might b entered up accordingly. Judgment to ' plaintiff for £200 and costs. 1 Isaacs v. thb Queen.—Mr. Cotteraskei '- leave to mention this case. It had beei ' previously before the Court, and by consen 1 was referred to arbitration. The award o • the arbitrator had now been received, am ' he asked that it be made an order of th< 1 Court. The claim originally was for th 1 construction of a telegraph line, the amoun ' claimed being £2900. Mr. Theo. Cooper ap peared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter fo: ' the defence. £1100 was paid into Court, anc the balance (£1800) was disputed by tin 1 defendant. The award is wholly in favooi of the defendant, and orders the plaintiff t< i pay the whole of the costs of the award, 1 which will probably amount to £150. " The order was made in accordance with th< award of the arbitrator, which was made i ' rule of the Court. Wm. Swanson v. H. R. Russell.—Thii 1 was an action to reoover the sum of £261 If 91, amount owing on an overdue promissory note. Mr Alexander appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Button, instruoted by Messn Jackson and Russell, appeared for the defen dant (the Hon. Henry R. Russell, of Napier), Mr. Button pointed out that the oase wai not ready for trial. A joint commission had been appointed to take evidence, and thej had not yet reported, and it would b< necessary before the action could be set down for hearing that an application should be made in chambers. The de fendant was now on his way out from England, and it would be muoh mori satisfactory to have his evidence in opet Court instead of by Commission, and then was a (probability that when the defendant arrived the case would be settled without th< intervention of the Court. His Honoi allowed the case to stand over until Decembei and said this was a case in which he hopec either side would apply f or a jury, or h» might find it necessary to order a jury. Mr Button said they would have opportunity t( consider His Honor's suggestion in the inter val. [Before His Honor and a jury of twelve ] HORI KORAKANUI AND OTHERS V. HENRI Lane. —This was an action to reoover the sum of £1100 13s 9d, the value of certair kauri and other trees sold. Mr. Forwooc with Mr. Palmer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for the defenoe. Mr, Palmer read the statement of claim and the defence. In these there were lengthy pleadings, and several agreements were set out. Mr. Forwood then opened the oase. He said that although the pleadings were voluminous, the issues to be placed before the jury would not oppress them. He had hoped that the case would have been left to His Honor alone, and not to trouble the jury, for the matter in dispute was almosta matter of construction of the wording of a deed, and the facte were almost, if not wholly, agreed upon. The claim of the plaintiff was in two parts. The plaintiffs, certain natives of the Bay of Islands, entered into an agreement with the defendant in February, 1879, by which they gave him the right to take all such kauri trees as he desired from the Waikino block, Bay of Islands, exceeding two feet six inches in diameter, for whioh he was to pay £1 5s per tree. This agreement, as set out by the defendant in bis statement of defence, was accepted by the plaintiff. The number of trees taken was agreed upon by both sides to be stated at 927 trees. The contention for the plaintiff was that every tree, which measured 2 feet 6 inches at the stump, was to be paid for under the agreement of 1879. The defendant's contention was that it must be measured half-way up the trunk. He (Mr. Forwood) thought that was the way logs were measured, but they did not sell by the log or by the foot, but sold the tree as it stood on the ground. There was a second agreement made eighteen months after, by which the natives agreed to sell to the defendant all trees nob exceeding 2 feet 6 inches in diameter, with all hollow trees then growing on the land for a lump sum. There was credit given by the natives for certain payments and credits. They sued on their agreement, and the second part of their contention was an alternative that irrespective of the agreement they were entitled to sue for the trees as for goods sold and delivered. The other cause of aotion was for trees other than kauri (totara, etc.) These they said the defendant had no right to remove, and although they gave the right to use these for dams, huts, etc., he was not entitled to out down 264 trees. The reply of the defendant was that in cutting down the trees sold to him, he exercised all reasonable care in the exeroise of his rights. Hori Korakanui was examined by Mr. Palmer, Mr. Richard de Thierry interpreting. The witness was cross-examined by Mr. Cotter as to the number of owners of the block. He replied that there were 47 in the certificate, and all had agreed to the aotion being brought. In reference to counting the stumps, he admitted that there was a disagreement as to the measurement, and he went to Russoll with Mr. Greenway, and had a talk about where the trees should be measured. They held that trees measuring two 2 feet 6 inches should be oounted, but Mr. Lane said that the butt should be 3 feet. This was the dispute, but they did not agree that 3 feet at the stump was to be the measurement, and that they were to get all the trees, the stumps of whioh were exactly 3 feet. He was also examined as to the measurement of the stumps. This line of examination was for the purpose of showing that the natives themselves recognised that any tree which did not measure 3 feet at the stump was not to be charged for, .The crossexamination of this witness was continued at considerable length. He was being questioned by Mr. Cotter as to his understanding as to the agreement and ownership of the trees. Mr. Forwood objected, but His Honor overruled the objection. (After the ' midday adjournment Mr. Hammond, of the Native Office, translated instead of Mr. de Thierry.) Lawrence Aylmer, a bushman, who went over the Waikino block twice with the natives and counted the stamps, was the next witness examined, and produced the list which he made up from actual observation and measurement of stumps. Frank O. Forwood, commission agent, gave evidence in regard to visiting the block, and making a report as to the number of stumps and description of them. He produced a list whioh he made out on the ground. In cross-examination he said that he was unacquainted with New Zealand bush. By permission of the Court a witness for the defence, named William Meikle, was called, and his evidence taken. He deposed to having knowledge of purchasing trees in Meronry Bay, and said it was usual to measure a 2 feet 6 inches tree in diameter from the centre of the barrel to the bark. James MoLellan, timber merchant, gave evidence in regard to the usual way of purchasing timber, and said it was customary to measure trees when standing at the stumps. This witness was cross-examined, when the Court adjourned at forty-five minutes past four till ten o'olook this (Tuesday) morning.