LAW V. EQUITY.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume VI, Issue 900, 22 September 1879, Page 2

LAW V. EQUITY.

[To the Editor of the Herald.] Sir, — The decision m the case Tucker v. Read's Trustees m the District Court on Friday last, is one which is calculated to shake one's belief is the old axioms. "The law hurts no one," and "For every wrong there is a remedy." Clearly, there was no remedy for the plaintiff m the Courb to which- he went ; and that the law does hurt some one is evident from the fact that he is cast m expenses which must be heavy m his attempt to get justioe ; and further it would seem that he is precluded from bringing his suit again. It creates some surprise that on the judges own dictum, the District Court is one of law and not equity, and further it seems strange that the very old doctrines, " an unpaid vendor having a Hen on the land," and moneys payable under deed being recoverable for 20 years under section 40 of the Statute Limitations should be reversed. That unpaid purchase money should be denied any other status than that of a simple contract of authorities and cases to the contrary, seems preposterous, and this, too, m the face of the clearest evidence as to facts, the debt being practicallj proved by the defendant and his books, which it seems to disclose a considerable sum still owing to other grantees. Such a state of things, to say the least of it, is shameful that a block of land should have been held all these years, and parts sold to a number of persons, who have gone to a great expense improving the same, and actually the purchase money to the original grantees is not paid to this day ; and worse still, claimants for the same are met by no denial or disproof of their claims but the Statute of Limitations is pleaded — just' as a man might meet a hotel bill by the '• Tippling Act."— l am &c. . Justice.