SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5023, 22 July 1903, Page 6

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

A pok.xb.ua land oasis. Yesterday Sir* Justice iSdwards gavis judgment m the case of Auty v. Thompson and Hood (as trustees lor the Ivinapora Lodge of Oddfellows), heard on June sth, and reported in tho “Times” of tho following date. Tho action was brought to recover possession of a section of land at Poru-ua, and arose in regard to a mistake us to boundaries. His Honor, in the course of hia judgment, said the questions submitted to tho Court were;—ClJ Was tho certificate of title under which tho plaintiff claimed void as against tho defendants, so far as it related to tha land in dispute? (2) If not, did tho plaintiff hold such land as trustee lor tho defendants? (.3) XVas tho plaintiff entitled to tho possession of such land, and, if so, upon what terms, if any? Having reviewed tho facts of tho case and cited authorities bearing on tha point, his Honor said that, in his opinion, plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of tho land in dispute. No doubt this was a hardship on tho defendants. but occasional hardships were inseparable from tho working of tho Act. Even a forged instrument might have tho effect of depriving an owner of his land, if under that forged-instru-ment tho land was transferred to a bona, lido purchaser for value. It appeared that one of tho boundaries to tho land in dispute was a stream, and that by tho alteration in the course of tho stream there had boon accretions to tho land as originally included in tho certificate. Counsel for the defendants contended that these accretions wore, not held under title of the laud of which they had become part, and that tha plaintiff could not, therefore, recover possession thereof. No authority wa® cited in support of tills contention, and, It appeared to him to be inconsistent with tho principle upon which tho alii*, vion became part of tho adjacent lands. There could, in his opinion, bo n<j doubt that such accretions followed tins title to the land of which they had become part. Tho plaintiff must have,, judgment _ for possession of tho laudi claimed, with costs on the lowest scale. Mr Beero appeared for tho plainlifi and Mr Brandon for tho defendant. IMPORTANT COMMERCIAL CASE. Judgment was also delivered by Ida, Honor in an action hoard on Juno Ist and reported in tho “Times” of the following date, in which Catherine Horcock, _Masterton, sued Colin A. Philip and it. A. Wakeman to recover £2od and interest upon a dishonoured promissory note made by the defendant Philip and endoraed by Wakomau. 'The case hinged upon tho question of whether an agreement to extend tho currency of a bill entered into by tbo husband, without tho wife’s sanction, was binding on the wife, she being the owner of a property in respect of tho purchase of which the bill had been given. His Honor, in giving judgment, held that in the case of a promissory note if there was an agreement to renew) the application to renew must be made within a reasonable time, and if not so made, that the rights of an endorser were not barred. Judgment was given in favour of plaintiff for £2OO, with interest at tho rate of £8 per cent, pen annum, from tho 13th February last mini the date of entering judgment with costs according to scale. 1 Mr Herdman appeared for plaintifl and Mr Treadwell for defendants.