PRESENTATION OF THE CUP.

Colonist, Volume XIV, Issue 1383, 27 December 1870, Page 3

PRESENTATION OF THE CUP.

On the balcony of the Ship Hotel, Mr. Elliott presented to the brothers Day the handsome silver cup> which, he said, had been presented by a true, openhearted sportsman, the late Captain Nicholion. Some people might regret that the cup was going from the Province (cries of "No"), but the Messrs. Day had well-earned it this year and the last, and having won it twice, it was their property, and he hoped that another cup would be subscribed for, to keep up the annual sport. (Applause.) The cup was then filled with champagne, and presented, along with a handsome silken flag, with blue field, and crimson border, and bearing the letters N.C.O. (Nelson Challenge Cup), to Messrs. Day, who replied in suitable terms. Three cheers were then given for the Bed Jacket, and three for the Committee, and the presentation was complete.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before John Shabp, Esq., R.M., and D. M. Luckie, Esq., J.P.

WANG-APEKA LANDS,

[Thk following report of a case connected with land at Wangapeka, has been delayed through lack of space.] Joseph Busch sued T. A. S. Kynnersley for £2 Bs., as loss sustained by plaintiff through the nonfulfilment of a contract, alleged to be entered into with the defendant for the lease of ten acres of Government land, on Wangapeka plain, agreed to be let to plaintiff by defendant, while the latter was Warden at Wangapeka. Defendant objected to Mr. Sharp sitting on the Bench. He said there was no doubt that a breach of contract had taken place; the only question was, who was liable. At the time he made the contract be was a member of the Nelson Executive, and he now objected to Mr. Sharp, on the ground that at the time the contract was made Mr. Sharp was a member of the Provincial Executive of Nelson ; and, therefore, interested in the question. Mr. Sharp Baid that the Executive did not appear in the case, but if both parties agreed for one Justice to try the case, he could leave the Bench ; but both parties must agree, otherwise they must go on. Mr. Kynnersley waived the objection, and the case went on.

Mr. Fell, who appeared for the plaintiff, described the case, and called

Joseph Bu9ch, who said, I am plaintiff in this case. I am a carter at Wangapeka. I met Mr. Kynnersley one day when he was in Motueka Valley, and applied to him for a piece of this land. He said he could get me ten acres if he oould. Mr. Bain, after this, came and surveyed the land, and pointed it out for me. Mr. Kynnersley gave me to understand it was my own so far as Mr. Bain showed me. I camped out for several nights, and split some fencing for it at the edge of the bush. I afterwards got word that I was not to have the land. I calculate the value of the fencing at £2 Bs. It has been taken away by people for firewood.

Mr. Kynnersley, in cross-examination, asked, How many times did you apply to me for the land ?

Witness : I applied only once for the land, when I met you in Motueka Valley. Mr. Kynnersley: Do you remember meeting me in tdwn, and speaking about the land ?

Witness: I met you once or twice on the streets of Nelson on the subject. I don't remember what was said, but; you told me you had asked the Superintendent, and that there was some delay.

Mr. Kynnersley: Are you a naturalised British subject p Witness: No.

Mr. Kynnersley: I waive the objection on that point. Mr. Fell said that was his case. Mr. Sharp pointed out that plaintiff had not proved any contract, and had produced no writing. Mr. Kynnerslej said he waived the objection on that score, and did not bring it up.

Mr. Shakp said he was bound to notice it, whether it was taken up by the defendant or not. It was an important element in the case. Mr. Lcckie said that defendant seemed to adopt the singular course of lighting the battle of the plaintiff against himself. Mr. Sharp said the case seemed clear, and there was no necessity of evidence on the side of the defendant. By that given the plaintiff admitted that defendant had only promised to do his best to get him a lease of the land, and even if an application for a lease of land had been made it should have been in writing. The case was similar to that of Dreyer v. the Superintendent except, that,'at present it was proposed to make the defendant a principal. It was cleii- in both casse that defendant was acting as agent in a public capneity, and known to be so, and plaintiff must have relied on the good faith of the Government, «nd, therefore, the agent was not personally Hablo. The principal was the Provincial Government, and the fact must have been well-known-; plaintiff ought to have known that defendant could not make an agreement, and also known the routine and practice of applicationsfor land, which must be made to the Waste Land Board. In 6e»king to make* the defendant liable as a principal, plaintiff should have shown some fraudulent representation by defendant of authority said to be tested in him. But no such thing had been shown, nor was it shown that defendant Lad acted in any way as principal. Indeod, there was r.o agreement, or contract, and, at the most, as said before, there was merely a promise by the defendant to use his best endeavors to get a lease, which, in a former case, was admitted to be all that took place. Judgment for defendant, but-, at the request of Mr. y«u. judgment of non-suit was pron.oun.ced, with