THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 772, 17 December 1886, Page 11

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

Ik be the Land Transfer Act, 1885, and 3N re a Caveat Prohibiting- Dealings with Lands, Property of Thomas Tanner. (Judgment of Richmond, J., delivered 28th September.) It is sought to maintain this caveat on the ground of concealment or non-disclosure by Mr Tanner of claims affecting his title. Nothing of the sort is mado out. There is only one affidavit filed on the part of the District. Registrar. It verifies copies of the application to bring the land under the Act, and of Kawepo’a caveat filed -20th November, 1884. Tbs Registrar, to support the caveat, relies wholly upon these documents, and upon the facts disclosed by the affidavits filed on the other side. It is obvious that there is nottiing like fraudulent concealment in the case. But it is argued by the AttorneyGeneral that there were technical omissions—it is plain that they were nothing more —on Mr Tanner’s part. The provisions affecting the question are section 2L of the Act of 1870, and form A in the schedule referred to by that section. According to the form the applicant declares that he is unaware * of any mortgage, encumbrance, or claim affecting the said land, or that any person hath any claim, estate, or interest in the said land at law, or in equity in possession, or in expectancy other than is set forth and stated as follows, that is to say.’ Then comes a parenthetical direction to state * particulars of mortgages, encumbrances, dower or other interest to which the land may be subject.’ It ia argued that the claim set up in the pending action, which impeaches the validity of the Crown grant of the Heretaunga block on the grouud that the grantees were trustees for the tribe, is a claim which existed at the date of Mr Tanner’s application, and ought to have been stated by him. But the requirement of the Act cannot be that the applicant shall specify every demand, honest or dishonest, well-founded or ill-founded, which may by possibility at any time be set up in opposition to his title. Such an interpretation would be ridiculous. It is not asserted on the part of the Registrar that the plaintiffs in the present action have good or even plausible ground for impeaching the Crown grant. Had the present action been commenced at the date of the application, or even before the issue of the certificates of 27th May, 1885, there might have been Borne j.o3sible ground for asserting that a fact material to his title had been kept back by Mr Tanner. But the writ was not sealed until 16th June, 1885, was not received in Napier unti.rthe 22nd of the same month, and was not served on any of the defendants to the action until 27th February, 1886, afterthe writ had been re-sealed.

On the 22nd June, 1885, Mr Tanner and hi 3 solicitor, Mr Cotterill, fir-t became acquainted with the exact nature of the proceedings assailing the validity of the Crown grant, and Mr Cotterill at ouce informed the District Land Registrar of the existence of the writ, and discussed the statement of claim with him as affecting the application of Mr James Nelson Williams to a portion of the block. Such being the facts I am of opinion that there is nothing to show that the claim made in the pending action is one which Mr Tanner was bound to recognize as existent on the 9th May, 1884, when his application was lodged.

The objection on the ground of a possible adverse claim to Rata to Honi’s share of the block is equally untenable. Admitting that the original conveyance of bis share might be impeachable on the ground that the grantees who had already alienated their shares did not join in the conveyance, a point on which I give no opinion,- it appears that Mr Tanner subsequently obtained a valid title by registration of the deed of confirmation. So far as appears he was fully entitled to obtain this

priority, tbo fraud and bad faith, if any, in the transaction being wholly on' the part of the Natives and their advisers. The District Land Registrar had full notice of ail these transactions through the caveat lodged by Renata Kawepo and abandoned by him. Caveat ordered to be removed. Costs, £lO 10s.

(united press association.) Napier, December 9. At the Supreme Court Joseph Noraen Bell, found guilty of rape yesterday, and ordered to be brought up for sentence to-day, was again remanded till to-morrow. Two boys named O’Connor and Rae, found guilty of house-breaking and forgery, respectively, were ordered to enter into recognizances to come up for judgment when called upon. In Bell’s case, the Crown Prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi in the second indictment, to. save the female children witnesses the ordeal of repeating the disgusting evidence.

Napier, December 10. At the Supreme Court Joseph N. Bell was brought up for sentence. He received ten years for rape and three years for indecent assault, the sentences to run concurrently. The last case on the calendar is being tried to-day. It is a case of arson that is alleged to have occurred at Woodville.

Invercargill, December 10. The Supreme Court was occupied yesterday with the charges against Benjamin Bolvin of breaking and entering a store at Thornbury (from which he stole the contents of the till) and arson, he having set fire to the place to hide his first crime. A verdict of guilty was returned on each count. Mr Justice Williams refused the application of the prisoner to be dealt with under the Probation Act, and sentenced him to five years for arson and two for breaking and entering, the sentences to run concurrently. Napier, December 11. T. F. Renwand, found guilty of arson, was sentenced to five years. This completes the criminal business. The Chief Justice proceeds to Gisborne to-day. Gisborne, November 13. The Supreme Court commenced to-day. Hori Takitaki, for assault and inflicting bodily harm, was fined £2O, or three months. Hetera Paora, convicted on five charges of forgery, was sentenced to nine months on each charge, the sentences to run concurrently. The same prisoner, for escaping from gaol, got three months. Gisborne, December 14. At the Supreme Court, Kawiri Karaha was acquitted of a charge of obtaining money on false pretences. Kuka, for uttering a forged cheque, was sentenced to nine months’ hard labor. Jacob and Tomshack, 'for attempted murder, to nine months, Ambrose Wickens was found guilty of unlawfully wounding. Sentence was deferred. Timaru, December 14.

The Supreme Court criminal sessions opened to-day. Mr Justice Johnston raid, in his charge to the Grand Jury, that the calendar was a small one, and there was nothing particular to notice in relation to the crimes. True bills were found in all the cases except in the libel action Aston v. Craig. Alexander Gascoyne, for housebreaking at Oamaru, was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. The jury in the case against Patrick Oran, for stealing wool, brought in a verdict of not guilty. Two criminal cases have yet to be tried. Invercargill, December 14.

At the Supreme Court to-day, the action Jones v. Colonial Bank was heard. The plaintiff, a solicitor, claimed £SOO damages, in consequence of defendants having refused to pay a cheque drawn by him to meet which he had funds in their hands. The main question was whether a letter given by plaintiff to the Bank, instructing them not to pay any bill of his without consulting him had a prospective meaning or referred only to bills then current. The Bank took the former view, and paid a promissory note of plaintiff’s, after which there were not sufficient funds to meet a cheque drawn by him. The jury gave a verdict for 20s, which does not carry costs, Hawera, December 15.

At the District Court yesterday Benjamin Ward was convicted of stealing a saddle. The jury recommended that the prisoner should be dealt with under the Probation Act. Judge Rawson declined to do so, but considered the jury’s recommendation in awarding sentence, and only gave the prisoner three months.