SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5598, 26 May 1905, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

DISPUTED RIGHTS AS TO QUARRIES.

VALIDITY OF A LEASE. His Honor the Chief Justice, sitting without a jury, yesterday continued the hearing of the case of Emma Louisa Morrison, a storekeeper at Pc tone, against Thomas Riddler, junr., a contractor of tile same town, which was commenced ou tho previous day. Plaintiff asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing on certain lands, part of subdivision 0 of section 1. Hutt and Korokoro South, and removing gravel; she also claimed £IOO damages, and asked for accounts to be taken of the spoil already removed. Mr Bunny appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Wilford for the defendant.

Plaintiff’s case was closed, and Mr Wilford, in opening tho defence, said his client contended that the signatures of the native owners of the land in question which had been appended to the lease given to Mrs Morrison, had not been properly attested; that the plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of the land, but was a tenant in common with Hie natives who had not signed the lease; that supposing Mrs Morrison was a tenant in common with certain natives who had not signed the lease, she could only bring an action for trespass against the licensee or another tenant in common where the acts complained of amounted to an ouster by means of the destruction of tho pronerty. It was a question whether the taking of gravel was a destruction, and, therefore, an ouster; in the lease there were no special rights given her to quarry, and, therefore, it was contended that quarrying on her part would he waste. Defendant held that his entrance upon Korokoro South was under leave and license from a tenant-in-oommon, and that he did not at any time enter upon Takerangi’s land.

A number of witnesses were called for the defence, and Mr Wilford asked his Honor to view the locus in quo, and subsequently hear argument upon the law points that had arisen.

His Honor said he would probably view the place on Saturday afternoon. As to the argument : he had made all his Court arrangements up to the middle of June, and could only spare a portion of June 22nd. The main point seemed \o be that Riddler had a right to enter upon the Korokoro land given by some of the tenants in common, and the question was whether the plaintiff was not in precisely a similar position with regard to that land. After a short address by Mr Bunny on this aspectAof the case, his Honor said lie would take time to- consider the matter. DIVORCE FOR DESERTION. RAIT “BAIT. Mr Skerrett appeared for the petitioner, Louisa Elizabeth Jane Rait, formerly Ross, who sought a dissolution of her marriage with George Wemyss Rait, which took place in Dunedin in 1885. There was no appearance of the respondent. The petitioner’s evidence went to show that she lived with her husband for a year and ten months, when ho gave a bill-of-salo over tho furniture. unknown to her, took away all her jewellery, and abandoned her. His sister paid his debts,' which amounted to something like £3OO. At this time he was always under the influence of liquor. In. 1887 respondent went to Brisbane, and she went to live with her father and mother. In 1889 the respondent returned to Dunedin, and obtained employment in the New Zealand Insurance Company, but lost his position in three months, and since that time had not supported her. She had been living with her brother for fourteen years. Has Honor granted a decree nisi, to he moved absolute in three mouths, petitioner to have tho custody of her two children.

A, YORK BAY LAND TRANSACTION. Hie case of the York Bay Land Company y. Matthew Barr, the evidence in. which was taken-on Wednesday. was called on again yesterday afternoon, when counsel resumed argument with regard to the question of the provision and dedication of a road to give access to the property which the plaintiff company had sold to the defendant at a public auction conducted by Messrs Turnbull and Co. on November Ist, 1904. On the conclusion of argument, bis Honor reserved judgment. The Court adjourned at 4.20 p.m. until 9.30 ■ this morning, when his Honor will sit in divorce.