COURT REPORTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 6495, 15 April 1908, Page 7

COURT REPORTS.

Tn;,S.')AV, AI'iUL 11. COURT OF APPSAL (Before- their Il.onor.j Justices Williams, Donni-ston, and Chapman.) NAT [VI:: LUASKS IN DISPUTE, UONNKXIA AND CU'IIEHS v. MEINICISTZHAC-EN. Anient in thi.-. case, "lucl. is mi appeal from the judgment ;,( his Honor Mr .Tii'itici' E-lwaid.s, and winch Ua.s alreadv been fully described in our .-.1-Min'is was resume'J on the. flitting ol "mi-'i'l D. Hell, KC, and Mr C. J'. Sl-crtctt, K.C-, with him -Mr T. vv. Lewis, npptared for (he appellant; M.r .Martin Chapman, K.C. with him Mr C. B. Moiison, appealed tor '.lie rispondonte. . Mr lleil, K.C, who had commenced his add rem on behalf of the appellants on the previous day, concluded hit. argument. . . Mr .-Jccr.tli, KC iellov;.n K , '-uh„,,tted that, the respondent':; ea.?c was L'-I tin iippc-UanM coul 1 not ur.e d.eir Inml in tlw ordinary and natural way without necc.vsanl.v ronumltinp; tr 05,„,.„.( ,„,.„.( on the respondent's, laud by her uuttlo. graying. It followed from this that the respondent could not u.se Per land without commit una similar tre,i.a.'ws ou the appellant's land by her rattle straying. WliLli ivas tc be preferred of the two wrong doer.*.- lhe quality of the right to occupy their rospcetivo lands was identical. 'J he disability ariuing from the exercise of that right was identical in each '.we. There was no principle on which the one was to bo preferred to the other, nor to ho granted a, remedy which in effect chough not in form, amounted to trio exclusion of the one from the natural and ordinary use of his r>v;u lauds. Ho further .submitted that the only evidence of the partition of I'JCb could bo fotuid in the sealed orders of tho Native Land Court. These orders had never been sealed; and there could be no partition severing tho tenancy in common unless under a sealed and completed order defining tho allotments*. If this woro so thero was an bin! ta tho iespontlonts' case, for it would bo conceded that in that case the parties wore holding as tenants in common—and on injunction would rot bo grant**! to restrain tho oxerciso of tho rights ot' a. co-tenant. Mr M. Chapman, K.C, in commencing his argument, ran briefly through the events leading up to Miss Meinortzhagen's title to tho land on the Waimnratna Block, the right to tho Joase of which sho claimed. Ho contended that Miss Mcinertzhagen had an exclusive right to tho possession of tho leaso of s'JvTt/ acres of I his block, which area had not as yet 1 eon defined, but which the Royal Commission (Sir Ilobt. Bbout, 0.J., and Mr Ngata, M.P.), alter inquiry, liad recommended that Kho should receive. It was submitted that at tho time of tho granting of the renewed lease there was no obstacle to tho granting of tho leaso except tho absence oi a formal declaration. Tho grant was not forbidden, but certain conditions wore imposed. Miss AleiuBrtzhagen was in lawful possession; that possession was lawful when it commoncod. A tenant at will was in lawful posscssi .n of the property until tho owner of the property lurnod him rut. And in tho case- of a tenant by sufferance the Court, always leaned towards him, and had to consider not only the benefit of the tenant, but also that of tho landlord. It was submitted that it was incorrect to say that .Miss Aloinerfzliagen was wrongfully holding possession of tho lands without a colour of title. Sho maintained that she had a title against everyone, and could tro.it tho appellants as strangers to tho titlo. But the respondent should he treated by tho Court as a person in lawful possession, and as such was a person whose business and trade should bo protected, for sho was in possession ■with tho consent of tho owners—a fact- which tho Courts had always treated as being actually a title in jticlf, and not tho more giving of a title. The exact situation of tho land could ho readily ascertained by a skilled surveyor from tho judgment, given hy tho Nativo I/and Court, in the matter. Mr Chapman's argument was i.ot concluded when tho Court adjourned Sor the day. MAGISTRATES' JUBISDICTION (Before Mr W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) POLICE OASES. Mary Wilson, on a charge of importuning, was remanded until tho following clay. William Wood, who pleaded guilty to thoffc of a quantity of copper, valued st £2 10s, the property of D. llooert»on and Co., was remanded for sentence until April 18th. Gt.orgo Soliolfield pleaded guilty to charges of (Unlawfully assaulting Annie Eliza Palmer, and to damaging goods valued at £' si, the property of Edwd. Wr'lscn. Tho evidence showed that tho accused had boon refused drink ly Miss Pilmer in tho Club Hotel Ho became rowdy, and throw a waterbottle, at Miis Pilmor. It hi* a idiclf boliind her, breaking several bottles. On tho first charge tho accused was lined £3, with costs 6s, 111 default fourteon das-3' imprisonment; and on tho second charge he was lined £l, and ordered tc pay tho extent of damage, .£1

-,.;, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. I CIVIL ISLSENESS. (Defer,; Dr A MoArthur, S.M.I EN D V, ■).•" K XI) K D CA S'l£3. ,/i:<lr-niont was entered up for th'j plaimTff bv default -n each of tho fol In-.viii" undefended e.>:;es:-—Jas. Smith and Sons v Mrs Elizabeth Vine, .''« ISs (costs <ys); M'el'itr'tm City Corporation v. Annie Clark, VI 12s 10d (costs <>s) • tho same v Agnes McLean, £2 10s 'M (rests ok); .Scott and < 'o. v. WJlli.ii" (■ Walker, ii'i 1a (id (costs ss); ltohe-t Hall Hall v. G. Mcrrett and Son:-, L%) l&s (crsts £2 1-U): We'lington Citv Crporation v. Kato Compton, £37 IDs Ui'i (costs £1 0.-0; tho same v. Aug'isto 1!. de St. llomain, £-1 !'s iOd icistn 8s); Muut. Cottrcll and Co I.ld , v. Mrs Ainv Green, £-1 Cs (ccs'ti 05): Charles XV. Brown v. Frederick W'lllF, li'i (co:;ts 7s;; Bonithoi: h'lee'.obl I'etiekuni Co., Ltd , v. -Vlisa 3. A. Haiprr, ClO 8s (ccsts CI 10s Gd); Arthur Itichmond Atkinson v. William TJivhop lilnc-k Hll U-liings. C 63 IBs Id (rosti £■! 'ls (id) DKKrADKD CASKS. PiniCHA.SK OK A SEWING MACHINE.

11. o>.car He.vott (Mr O'Leary) sued Fdward Crissl nid, hneklaycr, Hastines, for £0 os, claiired to be due as baTanco of payment -or a sewing r>aclu'nn which had been boucht by tho defendant's wife from tho plaintiff en lliu I ire-purchase system. After consideration I : lie ./viderco for t!ie defence, which ha I been taken in .Tust;ngs, his Worship gave judgment for tlii amount claimed, with costs £1 'is KJd. OScforo Mr W. G. Kiddell, S.M.) .SIORAGI',' OP FGHNITURE. Ellers and Son (Mr MuGrath) sued Wal-.cr King (Mr Neave) for £lO I'Js (Id claimed to bo due for storago of fiirni'.urp from February Ist to Juno 30th, IEOO. The plaintiffs' story was that the defendant liad enterod into a contract with them for the renovation cf twenty tons of furniture. Tho plaintiffs were to strvc the furniture until it was ordered, but Ihe defendant had subsequently refused to pay for storage. For tho delcnc-B it was contended tbat .ip mention of storage had been teado in 1110 original contract, which was only for the recovation of the furniture. Further, the plaintiffs had assigned their book deots to one Mace, and were not therefore entitled to sue Mr Neavo therefore applied that tho plaintiffs be ncn-saited. His Woiship granted a non-suit on oiAb. grounds, holding that there was no evidr-nco that storago had been con-tiraete-'I for, and that having assigned their bcob-debts, tho plaintiffs wore unable to bring an action for their recovery. A LANELiORD SUED. Mt 3 Annie Elizabeth Clark (Mr Hindmarsh) sued Oliver Witton Clayton (Mr Ward) lor possession of chattels and £2O damages for distraint on geeds Tho plaintiff had occupied a house owned by the defendant at 3 Bingham street as Airs Goldfinch. Sho married ono Clark, and continued to live wirh liim iil tho house. The rent was paid more gr less >rres*ularly, and come time ago the defendant distrained on her household effects, alleging that sho waj a ooteiiant with her husband. The plaintiff claimed that __her husband was the tenant.

Hi.; Woiship reserved his judgment. ALLFXIEI.- ILLEGAL SALE OF LfQUOiIS. A LOWER HUTT CASE.

Dr MoArthur delivered his reserved decision in the ease against Cornelius MoMauus (Air McGrath), which was heard at lower Hutt. There weic ttvo informations laid against tho defendant Ho was charged that, heing the licensee of tho Kailway Hotel at Lower Hutt, ho did en Sunday March lf>tfc, 1908, unlawfully open such premises for the sale (f liquor. Ho was also charged that on tho samp date he did ur.lawfully sell liquor, the purchaser )f which wa3 not u lodger in his hotel.

Two constables, while outside tho defendant's hotel, saw two men enter, and f< llowing them in found them in handed it out of the bar. One of the the men had a glass of boor in his hand, while the other was receiving a glass cf stout from the landlord, who handed it out of the tar. One of constables said ho saw a shilling in tho hand of one of the two men 'the other constahle, who Wtt3 close behind, said he saw no money, and both agreed that nothing was said about payment at the time or about a salo. Tho constables stated that, the men and the defendant said they were boarders, and were going to stay over tho night. For (he defence it was stated by the two men and tho defendant that they had met on Lambton Quay on the previous day, and that the defendant .had askod them to como and see bim on Sunday afternoon. This they did, and spent some time with the landlord, and had tea with him as his guests. They also had one drink in i tbo 'course of tho af tecrnoon.

His Worship said ho quite discredited tho story that the men had become iboarders, and on that ground ho had fined them for being illegally on premises. Thero was, however, no direct evidence as to any salo of liquor, and, although tho whole circumstances wore suspicious, still thero was u. doubt in his Worship's mind, and the defendant ■wtis entitled to the benefit of that doubt. Therefore, although with considerable hesitation, his Worship dismissed both tho informations.