Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, September 14. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) GEORGE V. HALL.

This was an action tried in July last before his Honor the Chief Justice and a jury of twelve, the object of plaintiff being to recover damages for injury done to land, which he alleged to be his property, by defendant having excavated up to the boundary, and failing to leave the requisite natural support to his (plaintiff’s) land, so caused it to fall in. The jury found for plaintiff generally’-, and in answer to the first issue, which enquired as to the nature of plaintiff’s tenancy, brought in a special finding to the effect that plaintiff and a person named Carter had purchased the laud eleven years ago, with the intention of dividing. it between them; paid the purchase money; went into possession, and remained in possession ever since. The conveyance of the laud at the time of purchase was made to Carter alone. The plaintiff went into possession of his own piece, the subject of this action, which he had occupied ever since, but had not received a conveyance from Carter until the 4th of March, 1875, and after the damage complained of had been done. The jury, in view of subsequent proceedings to ascertain whether plaintiff had only the right of a tenant at will, or a right to the freehold, assessed damages, variously awarding nominal damages, 205., should this right be proved to be that of a tenant at will, and £SO, uupposing his right to the fee simple to he established. Mr. Travers had obtained a rule nisi calling upon defendant to show cause why a verdict for substantial damages should not be entered up, and Mr. Allan to-day was to have shown cause. Mr. Travers said he was willing to accept nominal damages instead of applying for the verdict for substantial damages to be entered up. To this Mr. Gordon Allan, on behalf of defendant, consented.

After a conversation, Mr. Travers obtained leave to mention the question of costs at a subsequent sitting. The Court then adjourned.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18750915.2.18

Bibliographic details

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4520, 15 September 1875, Page 3

Word Count
347

SUPREME COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4520, 15 September 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4520, 15 September 1875, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert