SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Otago Witness, Issue 1230, 17 July 1875, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.— IN BANCO.

Thursday, Bth July. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston.) HERBERT (APPELLANT) V. OTAGO WASTE LANDS HOARD (RESPONDENTS.) Mr Macassey moved for a rule nm to show cause why the case should not be set down for hearing on rira iwe testimony, and the necessary witnesses summoned. Kule »mi granted. WASTE LANDS HOAHD AND I.OCAN. Case on appeal. Mr Mae.-i.-sey, with him Mr Haggitt, for appellant, Logan ; Mr Barton, with him Mr Stout, for respondents, the Waste Lands Board. Mr Barton a»ked for a rule nisi that the case be struck off the list, on the ground that the requirements for lodging with the Registrar lximl and securities for costs of the appeal had not been duly complied with. After argument, and after His Honour had heard what the iiegistrar had to s>ay on the facts of the mattet, His Honour held that appellant hail done all that he was bound to do in regard to lodging the bond. ! Mr Barton then submitted that sufficient security for the costs of the appeal had not been jjiven— that appellant's bond was not sufficient. The argument turned on the interpretation of the word " security." For the apiwllant it was contended that " security meant more than a man's own bond- -it meant sureties. For the respondent it was contended that a bond trom the appellant was sufficient, if the liegistrar deemed it to lie sufficient. His Honour said that upon the whole of the case he^ had come to the conclusion that the rule which Mr Barton moved for he must refuse, and, therefore, that the main case might go on. Certain facts being disputed, Mr Barton asked for a rule in respect to the mode of triaL His Honour refused the rtde at present. Mr Barton asked for leave to appeal. Refused. TCLLY AND ANOTHER (APPELLANTS) V. MOIU AND OTHERS (RESPONDENTS.) The appellants (Tully and Another) in this case _ were the defendants in the .Resident Magistrate's Court, and the respondents were plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were steerage passengers in a vessel from Glasgow to Port Chalmers, of which the defendants weio captain and first officer. Plaintiffs recovered Llti 10s damages in the Resident Magistrate's Court, for luggage of theirs put on board the vessel, which was not afterwards sent out to the Colony, to the loss of the plaintiffs and to their great discomfort on the voyage. It was now sought to have this judgment reversed. His Honour gave his reasons at length, and said that for these reasons he had come to the conclusion that the appeal must be dismissed, and the judgment of the Resident Magistrate's Court sustained. HIRBKRT V. THOMSON (CHAIRMAN WASTE LANDS BOARD) HXPARTE APPLICATION. In this case Mr Macassey moved for a rule nm, calling on Donald Reid, Horace Bastings, and Henry Clark, members of the Waste Lands Board, to show cause why they should not be attached and committed to the public Gaol at Dunedin for a breach of an interim injunction order made by His Honour Mr Justice Johnston, such breach consisting in their dealing with certain lands in the Heriot Hundred,after having been restrained from doing so. Thevhad received applications aud deposits for His Honour asked if Mr Macassey had any affidavits proving the service of. the injunction on these persons. Mr Macassey said he had an affidavit showing that immediately after the order was granted by His Honour in Chambers on the 3th uwt,, notice was given to the Chairman of the Waste Lands Board and to the Superintendent and Executive Council. His Honour asked would that do? Must there not be the same process as iv an attach-meut---i>ersonal service and the reading over of the original document '! Mr Macassey held that wa3 not necessary to find a party guilty of contumacy. .Notice of the injunction had been served. A letter was sent to the Waste Lands Board, and another to the Superintendent and Executive Council. He was moving at present against Mr Donald Reid, who was a member of the Executive and also of the Waste Lands Board. He was quite willing to assume that Mr Reid had no knowledge of these letters, but afterwards, on the same day, formal notice of the order was served on him. He (Mr Macassey) had a copy of the Daily Times of the (sth, in which tbe same notice that had been served on Mr Reid the day before appeared. The Court would have to determine the fact whether the proceedings uf the defendants were not contumacious. There could, he submitted, be na real doubt that these defendants knew what they were doing— that they were acting with a knowledge of the order, and a full determination t" accomplish their object. Information that the injunction had been obtained was given immediately after it was obtained on the sth, by lettera, and it was at a special meeting on the 6th that the action was taken. In answer to His Honour, it was stated that there had yet been no communication with the officer of the Court as to moving to set aside the injunction, and His Honour remarked that he had quite expected that application M-ould have been mad 3 on the following (Tuesday) morning. Mr Barton mentioned that a case for setting aside the injunction was being prepared as quickly as possible. It was arranged that cause should be shown on Wednesday next, the 14th inst., or as soon thereafter as the Court shall determine. 1>" BE SHIP DON JUAN AND IN RE 31ERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS. This was a petition from appellant against the order in Council stopping the ship Don Juan from proceeding to sea, on the ground that she was unseaworthy. Mr Macaasey supported 1 the petition. Petition received. LOUAN (APPELLANT) AND THE WASTE LANDS BOARD (RESPONDENTS,) Mr Macassey and Mr Haggitt for appellants ; Mr Barton and Mr Stout for respondents. At an earlier period of the day applications by Mr Barton had been refused by His Honour. The main part of the case now came on for argument. | Mr Macassey described the case as a vohmiu. I pus mass of matter. He gave, before entering into detail*, a brief statement of the case for appellant. Rural lands in Otago, when open for eale, are purchasable at the price of LI per *c«. If two or more apply for the same laud on the same day it is put up for sale by competition—if only one applicant he gets it at LI wr acre. It was contended in the prevent case that the application made by Mr Logau was for land which was open at the time at H per tat} that at the time it was applied for there was no wwon uufficient in W why &9 *J>J»UcaJ»on eboujd npf fe^ fe w » ;

granted. The Board should have acceded to the application, and declared Mr Lngwi the purchaser at LI per acre. That was the broad general contention which was urged on behalf of the appellant. There had been an attempt on the part of the Board to set aside this land as land of special value, namely, land for which a higher rate than LI per acre could be demanded, but this, it was submitted, was not legal— (1) beciiiwe the Board, in attempting to set .-wide the land applied for, as land of special value, acted without the consent of the Superintendent, ami his consent was required by law (2) compensation had not been paid to the pastoral tenant as required by section S., before lauds can be declared to be lands of special value ; (3) the lands, prior to the attempt to proclaim them as lands for sale of special value, had not been withdrawn from «ale, and notice hail not been given ; (4) that the reasons assigned by the Waste Lands Board for proclaiming these lands open for sale as lands of special value were insufficient- in point of law, and the attempted sale of the laud was void owing to the nonuompliance with the provisions of the statute. There were some other points, but he had indicated the chief. There was no question of fact whate\er; all was matter of law. The argument was not concluded when the Court rose.