LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9620, 19 September 1894, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sittings. Tuesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] ACTION TO SET ASIDE A DEED. Kamira te Mahara and other natives in this case sued George Harnett in order to have certain deed of lease declared void. Mr. Parr, instructed by Mr. Killen of Wh&ngarei, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cooper for the defence. Mr. Cooper, before the opening of the case, took the preliminary objection that all the parties were not before the Court. It was an action to set aside a lease, also for possession of land and tor rent he supposed in the shape of mesne profits, and the person in possession of the land, Mr. Brooker, was not before the Court. His Honor said if Mr. Parr chose to abandon everything cxcept the lease, then the case could go on. Mr. Parr said he should adopt that suggestion. Mr. Cooper said that necessitated an amendment of the statement of claim, and he should have to prepare a fresh statement of defence. His Honor said that was not necessary. The statement of claim was read by Mr. Parr. It alleged that plaintiffs were the owners of a block of 399 acres near Parua Bay. J.n 1888 the defendant, Mr. Harnett, entered into negotiations for the lease of this laud for ten years at £12 a year. In January, 1889, a document was presented to three of the native owners for signature, and, thinking it was a lease, they signed it. There was no explanation given to them of the document, and one plaintiff refused to sign it until one clause was struck out, and he then signed it. The lease as it at present stood was not what the three first signed, and they did not know it gave the defendant the right to purchase, or the right to mine. They claimed, therefore, that the lease was invalid, and risked that it should be declared so by the Court. The statement of defence denied most of the allegations in the statement of claim, and set out the circumstances o'i the due execution of the deed. At this stage Mr. Cooper asked to be allowed until after the midday adjournment to consider whether he should take any further stand in regard to the necessity f.or Brooker's presence, and the Court adjourned at ten minutes to one o'clock until two. When the Court resumed, Mr. Cooper said he had considered the question, and way; satisfied it was essentia). They nad a title for the whole term, and the result of this action, if it was successful, would be to dispossess, Brooker, who was in occupation ana was not before the Court. It was his tittle that was attacked. Mr. Cooper quoted several cases as authorities. Mr. Parr contended that Mr. Brooker's presence or absence did not affect the question at issue before the Court, which was as to whether or not this lease was invalid. His Honor said Mr. Brooker's evidence was not essential, as he could throw no light on the question at 'issue. Mr. Parr then opened the case. Mi*. Geo. Brown was sworn interpreter. Kamira Te Mahara gave evidence. His Honor asked with regard to the attestation was it true Mr. Mair was not present. Mr. Cooper «aid it was a fact Mr. Mair was not present, but the explanation was that the attestation was prepared in Whangarei, but Mr. Mair was not able to go at the time, and another was sent to explain the deed. The attesting witness being a country settler did not take any notice of this alteration, and signed the document as witnesses. Te Rahar?iha, another of the lessors, corroborated the evidence given by the first witness. The court then adjourned until ten o'clock next morning.