NEW SOUTH WAXES.

Colonist, Issue 67, 11 June 1858, Page 3

NEW SOUTH WAXES.

The Great Newtown Ejectment Caste.—The case of Doe on the demise of Devine against Wilson and others, known under the above title, has passed through another stage in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This case, it will doubtless be remembered, is an action of ejectment which has been pending many years, and which affects the title to a number of properties (embracing an area of 210 acres) in one of the finest suburbs of the city of Sydney; valued, collectively, at about a quarter of a million. The claimant is the heir-at-law of the original grantee, and the defendants, thirty in number, are the present holders of the property. The question substantially at issue is whether or not a particular conveyance by lease and release purporting to have been executed by the original grantee on the 22nd October, 1827, in favor of one Bernard Rochford, through whom the land has passed in various modes and proportions to the present defendants, was genuine. The plaintiff impeached this conveyance as a forgery, and a mass of evidence was adduced to show first, that the presumed signatures, both of Devine and of the attesting witnesses, contained inherent evidence of their spurious character. Secondly, that not only at this time, but long before, old Devine had been so imbecile, both in mind and body, as that lie was wholly incapable of executing any conveyance or transfer of property. On the other side, evidence was given to prove a direct negative on both these points: to show that the signatures were palpably genuine, and that Devine, although very old, and consequently weak, was quite competent, both physically and mentally, to execute deeds of this nature. The first trial of the case before Sir Alfred Stephen was commenced on the 26th March, 1352, and lasted eight days. It terminated in a verdict for the defendants. A new trial was moved for and refused. But the decision of the Court refusing this, new trial was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council. After many interlocutory proceedings^ the case was again tried last year. This second trial commenced on Monday,'the 17th August, before Mr. Justice Dickinson, and a special jury of twelve, selected with very great precautions to ensure their complete impartiality. That trial lasted thirty days, and again there was a verdict for the defendants. A new trial was once more moved for, and it is the necessarily lengthened argument upon this second new trial motion which has just terminated.

The plaintiff was represented, for the purposes of this argument, by Mr. Plunkett, Q.C., Mr. Blake, Mr. Isaacs, Mr. Faucett, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Dalley. The defendants by the AttorneyGeneral and Mr. Wise. The plaintiff's counsel divided among themselves the support of the various points taken in the new trial motion.

These points were twenty-five in number, bat many of them were abandoned. The fact was (as appeared during the progress of the case), that the new trial motion was drawn by Mr. Butler at a time when his learned colleagues having all left town for the circuits, he had no opportunity for consultation ; and he very properly raised objections upon every point in this protracted case, which would apparently afford a basis for one, leaving them to be maintained or abandoned, as niight be afterwards determined upon. The principalpoints were the 3rd and the 25th. That the verdict was against evidence and against the weight of evidence; and that certain of the jurors had prejudged the case which they had to try, and had displayed a bias in favor of the defendant. The 2oth was argued and disposed of first. Three of the jurors who sat on the trial of this case were alleged, upon affidavit, to have used expressions evidentiary of a strong bias on their parts against the claimant. Counter affidavits were filed, and, after a lengthened argument and the examination viva voce, of one of the gentlemen thus impeached, their Honors overruled the ebjection, as one which there was not sufficient evidence to sustain. After this all the other points, with the exception of the third (and of those which had been abandoned) were discussed and disposed of, each in its turn being overruled. They all related to various minor questions as to the reception or rejection of evidence, &c. Finally, the third point _ was argued at great lengthj—the counsel on either side going fully through the evidence and urging its sufficiency to meet their views of the case — i.e., the plaintiffs counsel contending that the finding of. the jury was demonstrably erroneous, while the defendants counsel maintained that it was as clearly right, and that in any event there was such an amount of testimony as must prevent the Court from disturbing the verdict.

The arguments terminated on Tuesday afternoon last, and judgment upon this—the final and most important point in the contest was reserved. It was announced by the Court that a verbal intimation,, as to the effect of its judgment, would be given as speedily as possible ; but that as another appeal to the Privy Council would probably result, whatever the decision might be, a written judgment would be ultimately given. But, wholly occupied as is the time of the Judges, some time must unavoidably elapse before the necessary consultations could be had, and their results transferred to paper in the form of a judgment.— Sydney Herald, May 10*