SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XIII, Issue 4741, 15 December 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Ce'ore His Honor Sir J. PrcnJergast, C.J.) YESTERDAY. w. i\ FiN>:r::.vN- v. JOHN* WEIK. The following is the evidence in the case of Finneran v. Weir : — W. P. l<\.::i. run deposed : I am the perso.i mentioned in the produced certificate ■if title for suctions i) and 7 Whataupoko I gave £30 for the transfer of the deed to G Taylor. Theiv was a mortgage to the Building Society for £2i)o over the property. At that time I thought thedefendmt was in occupation, and I believe, is so now. I never gave him permission to occupy tho land. 1 instructed my solici tor to write to defendant regarding the occupation of the property (letter charging rent, &c. put in.) Mr Weir did not see about the letter, and my solicitor wrote him a furtht-r letter (letter put in). I received a letter from defendant (producod). I estimate the rsnt of tho property at about £'o5 a year. To Mr DeLautour : The £30 consideration money was not for an account owing me. 1 endorsed a bill for Taylor and had to pay it. I told Taylor that as Weir was in possession of the property he was the most likely to buy. I told Taylor that I was informed by my solicitor that the lease was worthless. The land was put up to auction, and was passed in. Ultimately I purchased the property for £30. Taylor informed me about a lease to Weir, also that Weir had built on the property. I know the rent Weir had to pay Taylor. This closed tho plaintiff's case. The def-nce set up was that the defendant wa3 in equitable possession under an agreement to lease from Taylor, which agreement was made known to tho plaintiff before he took the transfer from Taylor. John Coleman deposed : 1 witnessed the agreement (produced). Mr Kenny obj'-'^ed to the agreement being put in us being insufficiently stamped I his objection w.na upheld, and Mr De- | Laut'Uir guaranteed the fine of £5 to make the document admissable. Examination continued : Mr Weir was in occupation of the property when the agreement was entered into, and had improved it. J. Weir deposed : I am the defendant, and reside on the disputed property. The agreement put in is the one under which I took occupation. 1 have built a threeroomed house on the property, and have spent in all about £125. The agreement allowed me to remove the house. ] have paid the rent under the agreement up to January next. To Mr Kenny : The house would coat nearly £125, and I have made some other improvements. The land was not worth more than 10s an acre to lease. J. Ponsford : I owned the sections in question. I know G. Taylor, and put him in possession of these properties, and finally sold the property to him. After argument judgment was reserved. THIS DAY, UNLAWFULLY WOUNDING. The prisoner Ambrose Wickens was called up for sentence, and in answer to the question whether he had anything to any, ho said upon the night of the occurrence he concluded that Mclntosh was either in a state of lunacy or drunkenness from the language he used. Ho took the knife up in defence if necessary. He did not intend to injure Mclntosh, nor did he injure him. Any injury he may have suffered was purely out of accident. His Honor said the jury had had the matter carefully before them, and had come to the conclusion that the ush of a knife was not necessary. They evidently considered that there was no necessity for the prisoner to remain, and although he was a near relative he should have gone when told to go by Mclntosh. The jury also thought the husband had acted within his right in attempting to remove the prisoner. He had given the case careful consideration, and saw no reason to inflict a lighter sentence than in the case of Tomshack. The sentence would be nine months' imprisonment with hard labor. B,VNKKI"ITCY. The bankruptcies in the following cases were closed, and the next sitting day of the C> urt was set down as the day for applying for discharges : E. C. Bolton, W. Madder, J. W. Poulgrain, J. W. Mackrell, T. Bartlett, Emma Hartnett. F. Fox received hia discharge, Mr Watson appeared for debtor, In the application of C. W. Ueardonfor a discharge, Mr McDougall appeared in support of the application. Mr Ward for the Assignee objected to the discharge until the debtor fulfilled his promises. The application was left over till next sitting to allow of proper notice being given as required by the Act, William I. Petchell.— Mr Watson appeared for the debtor. Discharge granted. Tho application of Mr Bloom field for a discharge will probably be dealt with before His Honor leaves. CIVIL CASES. CoLKMAN & CLAUtiE V. COOI'ER AND SMITH. Mr DeLautour appeared for plaintiff and Mr Brassey for Cooper. This was an action to recover from the defendant Cooper a share in the Karaka blook. The share was claimed under a former deed of mortgage from Copper to Read's Trustees in which he (Cooper) was to transfer any further interests he may become possessed of in the Karaka block to Read's Trustees. The defence to the action was that Cooper did not own the property. It was acquired for Mr Ward and was paid for by Mr Ward. R. Cooper deposed : I remember purchasing a share in the Karaka block from Hori Porou, who obtained the share from Ripeka Hinetu. I purchased the share for Mr Ward. TheTruqfc Conimjssipner's certificate was applied for in 1870. That certificate was not obtained. A certificate waa eventually granted in this year. I subsequently conveyed to Mr P. Barker on September 24th, 1880,. His Honor said it would bo neoesoary to join Mr Barker and Mr Ward, and on the application of Mr DeLautour the case wn3 adjourned until the next sitting of the Court to have these gentlemen joined. The question of cpsts was reserved. ... 'paMMER V. J, TUTCHEN, Mr DeLautour for plaintiff and Mr Kenny for defendant. The claim was for an injunction to restrain tho defendant from selling a certain property— a brick yard— at Whataupoko over which the defendant held a bill of sale, tho conditions of which, he alleged, had been broken. The advertisement notifying tho sale of the property, and a subsequent one postponing it, were put in evidence ; also a letter from the defendant's solicitor to the plaintiff, and certificates of title and deed of mortgage. J. Trimmer deposed : The mortgage r induced was'made by myself and Doleiiian. Wo woroVavrying on the property ;is .-) brickyard. Tho partnership of Triniiiie».-. t iu} |yf;jfi tt ;in wiia d'^pU-ed, and the property iras sqld and bought in by Mr Cowman for Mrs Trimmer. A transfer was mivdo to Mrs Trimmer. Tho deed was ii'.'t r 'gis .red. I several times nsked Mr Tutchen to give a title, but could not got it. Ttr.'.'hen never objected to the transfur. I wrote to defendant with regard to the plant, lv pursuance of that letter I sold a niiai .deal pf the plant— about £71. I remained in possession oi the place till the ac! ion. Defendant took goods to the value of £l!i' Mrs Doleman gave £20 for the mill. I used about £20 worth of goods. T!io differ np3~^>etween £50 and £f\i — I sold {,o other pcrauiis. There v.as £11 103

worth of other ponds, not in the estate. I gave defendant 3 lrs Doleman's P/N for £10 10s iind iii\' own for the balance. He made no object ioti, and 1 went to Tologa Bay and left Mr Tutchen as my agent in Oisbomo to collect rent, interest, &c. I told him a portion of what I had coming in, and he said ha would do his best, to get it. In September I wrote to defendant relative to the promissory note. I got no reply, and came down to see Mr Tutchen. He said 1 had not endorsed Mrs Doleman's bill. He said he could not allow interest, but would do so on the bill maturing. I went to Tologa Bay the next day, where I received a letter from Tutchen. In consequence of the letter and the .advertising of my property for sale I tonk this action. J. H. Trimmer deposed : I received tho order on Corcoran (producec') from Mr Joyce and I gave it to defendant. On my father coming to Gisborno he left his horso at Tutcheu's place. I went up for the horse and defendant gave me two papers, saying that my father must collect them himself or get someone to do so as he had no time himself. 0. O'Dwycr deposed to arranging with defendant to occupy tho brick yard. Plaintiff was present when the arrangement was made. Defendant had spoken to me previously and said I could have the place if it suited me. I took it and got the keys from defendant. To Mr Kenny : I took the house from defendant, but the plaintiff was present. Plaintiff left instructions with defendant to draw up an agreement for two years occupation. 1 have never paid any rent, nor has anyone ever asked me The case now narrowed itself down to tho point whether the defendant had agreed to allow the plaintiff time in which to pay the interest, and this being absolutely denied by defendant, judgment was given againsS the plaintiff with costs, permission being given to plaintiff to move for a decree to stay the sale on his paying interest and expenses.