WELLINGTON COLLEGE.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4310, 20 March 1901, Page 2

WELLINGTON COLLEGE.

TITLE TO THE GROUNDS

ACTION AGAINST THE GOVERNORS.

In tlie Court of Appeal yesterday, before tlie Chief Justice, Mr Justice Williams. Mr Justice Conolly, Mr Justice Denuiston and Mr Justice Cooper, argument was begun in tho removed case Henry Jackson, of Lower Hutt. plaintiff, against the Governors of Wellington College, the. Rev James Paterson, Presbyterian minister, and Harry Crump, builder, defendants. Air Travers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hislop for the defendants. This was an application for an injunction to prevent the defendant Governors ind tho defendant Grump from doing nivthing in the way of alienation with the college grounds. Tlie. application raised the question whether the title of the Gov ernors to the grounds was a good one. The plaintiff Jackson was one of tho original trustees of tho land, and tlie Rev James Paterson, who was also a Governor, was tho other surviving original trustee. The defendant Crump was joined! in consequence of his having made excavations with the object of forming, in accordance with permission obtained', a- street on the northern pai t of the grounds. The plaintiff s mam point was that tho land was conveyed for tho purposes of a college affiliated with tho University of New Zealand. Ab Wellington College was not now affiliated with tlie University, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant Governors had no title to tlie land. j Mr Travers said that at the close of the hearing in the Court below he moved for judgment for the plaintiff. He now repeated that motion. There was no defence whatsoever of a negative character. Tlie defence set up was an affirmative one. Its first branch was (hat the defendant Governors were put into possession of the land without any trust • second!v, it was said that certain statutes had the effect of vesting m the Governors the fee simple of the property ; and, thirdly, it was said that they had acquired a“ title under the Statute of Limitations. , , . , ■ Air Hislop submitted that the plaintiff’s status before the Court had not been proved iu any respect. there would, he said, ho two. mam questions for consideration. The first vvas as to tho status of the plaintiff. If he proved his status, then there would be the question of whether the defendant Governors had done anything which they were not authorised under the trust to do. , . Argument will he continued this morning,. ______________