SUPREME COURT.

Colonist, Volume LVII, Issue 14142, 19 July 1916, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

■, ■ -, i ,—, TAITAPU G<|LD ESTATES, LTD., V. J. PftOUSE AND OTHERS.

CLAIM FOR RECTIFICATION.

Yesterday, the judgment of His Honour Mr. Justice Hogking in. the case of the Taitapu Gold Estates, Ltd., v. J. Prouse aud others, heard at the last sittings of tho Supreme Court at Nelson, was delivered by the DeputyRegistrar of the Suoreme Court (Mr. J. Fitz-Gerald). TTiis was an action in which the. plaintiffs prayed for the rectification of a transfer registered under the Land-.Transfer Act, and of i a certificate of title issued pursuant to the transfer. The facts were that the plaintiffs entered into agreements with defendants in writing for the sale of certain blocks of land at Taibapu, with .. the proviso that the right to the minerals was reserved to the vendors. . A transfer was registered and a certificate of title Was issued to the defendants. Neither in the draft nor in the engrossment was any mention made of the reservation of minerals. Some eighteen months, after the completion of the purchase the plaintiffs discovered what had happened, and bhey claimed that the reserva--3 tion should have been inscribed in the ' transfer, and they requested the de- ] fendants to have same rectified. Dependants denied there was a mistake I and refused to agree to any rectifica- \ tion, hence the action.

In giving* judgment, His Honour said he would infer from the evidence that the solicitors, for both parties unconsciously overlooked the reservation regarding the minerals (which was mentioned in an arbitration clause), and might well be excused owing to the unusual position in which it occurred in the agreement. He. acquitted the defendants of all fraud. After reviewing the law on the subject, His Honour declared that the certificate of title in favour of defendants and the transfer from plaintiffs to defendants Avere executed by mistake, the reservation in regard to the minerals being excepted from the transfer, and the plaintiffs were entitled to have the mistake rectified. He ordered the defendants to re-trahsfer to plaintiffs the minerals I below the surface.

No order was made as to costs, except that plaintiffs would be required to pay stamp duties, registration fees, etc., in connection with the transfer. Mr. Hayes appeared for the plaintins and Mr. Fell for the defendants.