SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 9113, 19 December 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

— *■—*♦•— —'A: ... -1. Th-crsbay. Decembeb lj|. ' The Supreme Go-art sat a^ain thisi morning, hie Honor Mr Just;ce Chap* man Residing, v V •JUDgMpppS, J His Honor read several *w>nj_id«i£d|j , judgments. ■'' ' ' 7 ' 'j 1 * In the case Hands and other** v. Wood, the plaintiffs had feaa* Mr Vf. Stevens, M.P., a licence/ for 1000 acres of flax land , on( ' the Cascade „ River, where Vthe-gj farmed the flax and had a n_ill, theun term of tenure being the balance pf] Mr Stevens's seven years' Crown lease./ The river was very inaccessible, aiulj" plaintiffs, being in debt and requiring capital, had tp look A>nn^. for "assi^ ance. In December, 1906^they rateed! a loan from the defendant, a large* dealer in flax fibre, and an agreement' f wae wade in terms enabling him to r^i the loan from the fiijst two rfuß* ments ; pf flax. Very great dpifflmu&j^ was experienced in taking a .steameatl up the Cascade River, and/ when, att last the flax was^ got down, the defend dant haying assisted the plaintiffs in| .getting a, steamer, the defenda:at sej cured his debt with, the cargo. ' Maf Stevens's rent was everdup. Any. mfe? much forbearance he cancelled thet plaintiffs' license. The plaintiffs ©ora^ plained that when tbe defendant re-< ceived the first shipment of S3 toms hd did not apply the proceeds in terms ot the agreement, but took them -in xe-j duction of. his own debt.. A laTge snmt was claimed as damages. The plaintiff^ relied on. a clause of the tajgreempnli making it defendant's duty to. '; payMr Stevens's debt out of ptaiSe-eeds, an<| '■'- ihey annes^cl to th© n^m^eompliance alt the -consequences foqr which they x cdaianed| damages. But the clause did not men-* tiot_i the payinent -of that debt, an 4 tfefif defendant .said he knew nothing pf iti and had never seen the licppse. Ha knew tfoe*fe. was a and ps . content mthi the plaintiffa r ■a^rcanc** that with thfidr. prospect^ tjiey pptila .soon pay his ppmparalayely snigU wM yance. He never Uindegrtopk to kpepy the license alive. H_U Hi^.<tt COiddJ not reaifl into the agreement an obli^j tion on the part of the defendant 'ia defer his own debt, especially whenTbhe • terms of agreement on plaintiffs' %¥m were admittedly broken ' and only ona belated shipment came forward, Thfl action failed on the construction -pf tha . agreement. The cl^im for dap»age_* _. was made out on an extravagant sc^lW as the plaintiffs had explained, on - e-tM count of their solicitor having Wm understood his instmctionSi but was never amended, iand the plaintiffs soughi to show very heavy losses. * All the ob* cqnistances, he thought, indioated thaff their chances of making a pro.lt .tfrora/ a single? mill were yery problematics^ and it was very doubtful whether •%. considerable loss, due to defen.d^p.'t'gl action, could ihave bee_j &§i4 tro* Vbp 7 -proyed. Owing to this aisf other ai* guments pn behalf pf tlie defendant he pye judjgfll^nii foy th^ defendant •rith! coats. The plaintifEs appeared in person, «wi<| the defendant was represented by Md G. Harper and Mr S. G. Raymond. j In the case TBorcoskie v! Johns and) another, a olaim was Tmade for -fiSla' 17s and rescission of contract. Hitf Honor said that the plaintiff purchased! about twenty acres of land at £70 per acre, by auction, from Messrs Pyne ant! Co., and paid a deposit of £218 l'Ta'opl the day or the sale: The pfoini&ff 9*>rn-i plained that he had - been influence*^ and had b-eeh induced to give more thau| thie land was worth, by a material qtara ment that the land was free froaij noxious weeds, whereas a portion of it *wa**j infested wjth Californian this-fle., ajjp this was not denied. ** Tfeg staterpent had been made in successive advertisements jn the words,. "Th^re.afe Tm noxious weed©," and PJvnipE <?onsidei*V ed that the auctioneer^ would nqt hava so advertised if the etat^ of tlie landl had been fairly represented 'to *UuM*aj He assumed that . the plaintiff retted upon the correctness .of the advertise* ment, and regarded the statement -ps d| material' one. The fact that evidence/ had been given "ip, Tj-pth sides tjiai* patches had been, as both parties thought, effectually treated for thistla (strengthened rather than weakened $lid statement iin ihe advertisemeiit. There was no suegMtion of fraud or wilftd TOisrepreSQE^tion^ although there might Have bgeji mS^pf^nt-^prH The caso vrasroiie that came within th* requirements pf the law 5< aad JUdgQ^j| would be for the rescission of the! ''&&{ tract and the return of the deposit. '" \ Mr Cafisidir. for Mr -Pon-afjfr, ap&t peared foir the plaintiff, and. Mr Harplij for the defendants. "il In Earguhar v. the A von Road Rowpffl the plaintiff claimed against the,l|oari| because in 1905 the Board failed to plear a drain running throughThiai land, beoause during a flood by the glc»okura| pf the drain, his potato crop was dji* stroyei. In answer, it' was claimed bn the Vpoard that it wA always previpq«« cleaned the drain, but that pravipudg the plaintiff had always cut the hedfip alongside*tbe ditch. When one pJ.tEf Board's 6ervante came to clflan thf djtcq out, he fonnd that the hxklge pyerhui^d the ditch and prevented' the weaning! |Rom being done. If the neglect pi tha piaintifi to cut tbe hedge 6eri<Hi*sly om structed the defendant m cleamng iM ditch, the defendant was relieved of the responsibility for the con-jequenee-t-g It did not refuse to clean *^ di*ki_|

i

•but offered to do so when the hedge ceased to obstruct the operations. After dealing with a number of the issues arising out of the case, his Honor gave judgment for the defendant Board, with costs* Mr ' Stringe r. X.C, and Mr Cowlishaw "appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr G. Harper m& Mr Andrews for thp defendant Board. |lie Honor also gave judgment in the case Mark Stevens v. the Grey Licensing Conimittee and Jamee Livine, which was a motion for a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings connected with an application made by i Livine to the committee and upon whidh the committee had professed tp ►grant a certificate for the removal of !a publican's license from an hotel at Blackball Junction to a place at Blackball township. The objections to the assise of thp certificate were that the section mentioned in the application was not' that to" which the license was transferred, that, tbere was no reasonable accommodation on the site where it was proposed to transfer the. license, that such site was more than a mile diistant by road from the site of the hotel the license of which was proposed to be transferred, and that* Li-vine's intention was to apply again for another transfer of his license to a site further on. His Honor read , a lengthy judgment, and granted the order as prayed, fwiih costs £10 10s, to hp paid by Livine to Mark, Stevens. $j(r Alpers, for Mr Young, appeared for" the plaintiff and Mr Stringer, . X.C.. lor" tjie 'defendants. * ~ \ I. . — * — * IN BANKRUPTCY. James Woodard (in person), W. L. Dayidspn (Mr Hunter) sand Js*.mes Scott (Mr Vincent) applied for and were granted their discharges in bankruptcy. IN CHAMBERS. At a Chamber sitting of the Court, Mr Neave obtained an order for the Public Trustee \to sell lands in the estate of & lunatic. ;•.'*. lir Helmore made application for and was granted probate in 'the estate of the. late "Alexander Studholme, and on Mf Harjnan's application probate was .granted in the estate of John Reimann.