SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5597, 25 May 1905, Page 2

SUPREME COURT

THE HAUXF.RE WATER-RACE SCHEME. His Honor the Chief Justice yesterday continued the hearing of the appeals brought by five residents of tho Hautcre district against the Horowhenua County Council in reference to their scheme for the diversion of portion of the waters of tho Alangone stream to supply tho water-races that it is proposed to construct in the district. After hearing counsel in argument, his Honor said ho would take time to consider tho points raised.

A YORK BAY LAND TRANSACTION. The case of the York Bay Land Company v. Matthew Ban- was called on before his Honor the Chief Justice yesterday morning. Air Ha-dfield appeared for the plaintiff company, and Air Treadwell for tho defendant. This was a suit for specific performance in connection with tho sale of a section of land at Y'ork Bay, on the eastern side of Wellington harbour. The case for the plaintiff was that at an auction sale, held on- November Ist, 1904, by tho company, one of the sections, containing sixty-one acres, was knocked down to the defendant for the sum of £350. Defendant then arranged for tho payment of the deposit and of instalments ‘extending over two years, hut later on the defendant stated that ho intended to withdraw from tho transaction, as tho character of the land had been misrepresented, to him as suitable for building purposes. The misrepresentations charged wore that plaintiffs’ agent stated that there were ten acres of flat land, and that Air F. H. D. 801 l had purchased contiguous sections for £SOO, which statements were not true in fact. To this plaintiffs replied that their agents made no misrepresentations at all, but that the defendant personally inspected the land before the sale, and, being satisfied that it was suitable for his purposes, voluntarily bought it at public auction, and that consequently there was neither misrepresentation nor fraud on tho plaintiffs’ part. Having taken the evidence tendered, and heard the arguments of counsel, his Honor granted an adjournment until 2 p.m. to-day, to enable evidence to ho produced from the Land Transfer Office with regard to the road provided to give access to the land in question. DISPUTED OWNERSHIP OF QUARRIES. VALIDITY OF A LEASE. In the case of Morrison v. Riddler, which came before his Honor the Chief Justice yesterday. Air Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, Emma Louisa Morrison, a storekeeper at Petone, and Air Wilford appeared for tho defendant, Thomas Riddler, junr., a contractor, residing at the same place. This was a claim for an injunction to restrain the defendant from trespass-'ng on land part of subdivision C of- section 1, Hutt aad Korokoro South, and removing gravel; for £IOO damages, and for an account of the spoil already taken. Sir Bunny, in opening the case, said there were two pieces of land situated on tho Hutt road near Petone which the plaintiff claimed to hold a Lease of. One niece was called Takerangi’s land, and the other Korokoro South. For some twenty years'these pieces of land had some value as quarries, as they were tho ■ only places where suitable road-making gravel could he obtained close to Potoae. They had acquired a special value on account of the work in connection with the straightening of the Hutt railway line, and the activity in road-making that had been displayed in the. district, while a great deal of material had been required by local people. The plaintiff had a fourteenyears’ lease from the natives with regard to the Takerangi block, which had been registered;, she also’had a lease of the other block from thirty native-owners, but although the respective interests of the/owaers had been ascertained, there had been no partition. A number of these natives leased the land to plaintiff for twenty years, from 1893. Plaintiff had been in the habit of using the land partly as an adjunct to land she held at the back, and partly as a quarry, though she had not used it in the latter capacity for about two years. She had never been disturbed in the possession of this land before the acts by the defendant which she now fcomplaiued of. Tire defendant was at one time in plaintiff’s employment as a carter. Messrs G. and H. Findlay, of Petone, called for tenders for the supply of material, and Riddler got the contract. The question arose then as to where he should get the metal, and he went to certain of the owners of the land who had not signed plaintiff’s lease, and obtained permission to take gravel. The defence was a general denial of the material allegations. Witnesses- tor tho plaintiff stated that the defendant had been found removing gravel from the Korokoro block, and when warned to desist, he said he would not take any more; hut later on ho was again found taking metal, and when spoken to, he said Brangi, an. old woman, who was one of the owners of the land, had given him permission. He was told that before ho could accept that permission, he would have to get a subdivision order, and have her proportionate share determined. When it was threatened that ho would be given in charge, ho laughed at them. The evidence for plaintiff was not concluded when tho Court adjourned.