THE HOROWHENUA CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2268, 19 August 1897, Page 12

THE HOROWHENUA CASE.

CHARGES AGAINST SIR W. BULLER WITHDRAWN. Wellington, August 11. When the action of the Public Trustee v. Sir W. Buller and another came on in the Supreme Court this morning Mr Cooper, on behalf of the plaintiff, unreservedly withdrew all the allegations against Sir W. Bailer, and admitted that there was no evidence to support them. The action was technically to test Sir W. Buller's title to two email sections of 11 acres and his leases and the mortgage in the famous Horowhenua block. There were also 'in the statement of claim charges of fraud. Mr Cooper said these could not be supported, and Sir W. Buller was completely exonerated. Neither was there any evidence to show that Sir W. Buller had notice of any trust on Major Kemp'e part. It was the duty of the Public Trustee to make this statement to the court, and they would submit to a decree that Sir Walter's dealings with the land concerned were valid and entitled to be registered. He suggested that Mr Bartholomew's lease should also be included, and the other side assented for Sir W. Buller. Mr Bell, alluding to paragraphs in the Wellington papers stating that the action had been settled, said- he wished emphatically to deny this. His client (Sir^WaTterßuller) had resolutely refused any settlement, and consistently and persistently claimed to have the charges against? him investigated by the court. No later than Saturday last he (counsel) had intimated in reply to a letter -stating that the plaintiff would call no evidence, but only on argument on the law points, that if this were done Sir W. Buller himseH would call evidence and insist on the charges being gone into. What they had just heard from Mr Cooper was a voluntary withdrawal on his part and not the result of Any arrangement.

Mr Cooper agreed that Mr Bell's statement was correot. Sir Robert Sfcout, on behalf of Majbr Kemp, said that his client was being punished for being honest and because he had the temerity to insist that he was a trustee. He asked for full costs. Mr Cooper pointed out that the Publio Trustee was a public official directed by law to bring this action. Costs should not bo more than according to scale. Mr Bell also asked for full costs. This case was not merely a question of a few acres o£ land, but involved issues of the utmost importance to S.r W. Buller. The labour and enormous cost of typewriting alone was nearly £100. After further argument, the Chief Justice said that both the defendants wece entitled to costs. The amount and alro the term of the dtciee could be settled in Chambers.