Untitled

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXII, Issue 6497, 27 April 1888, Page 2

Thursday, April 26th. (Before His Honor Chief Justice Sir James

Prendergnst.) TnunsTON v. smith.

Tho cose lasted all day. For the plaintiff in tho counter claim (Mr Smith), it was shown bj Mr Knnerty that tho grass land was greatly overstated, and that tho bush land, which was very much hrokon, was not worth more than 7s Gd an acre, C. H. V. Smith, son of the plaintiff, valued the same land at 10s an aero. Tho hvblo land was valued at £2 an aero. — The defondant, Mr J. W. Thurston, gavo cvidonoo that ho know thero woro not 400 aeros of grass, but ho did not expect Smith to buy without looking at tlio land. He valued the worst part of the land at 25^ to 80s an acre. — Messru Lind, Aikcn, and Dictio tallied it us worth from £2 10s to £3 an aero. It was just ton o'clock when tho jury retired, and at 1.20 they returned with 11 thrco-fourths verdict for 'Mr Smith for £250.

Friday, April 27th. HAMIONA AKD OTIIBItS V. SIMPSON.

Mr Hutchison, for tho plaintiffs, and Mr Uarnicoat for defendant.

This was a claim for possession nnd mesue profits of a, portion of tho Waipu liloek. Ono of the owners had not signed tho lease, and sued for tho rucQvery of his share of tho profits. Af tor hearing counsel on tho law points in the matter His Honor doliverod judgment for defendant.

OEABB V. BUTCIIEB.

Mr Esam for tho plaintiff, and Mr Skerrct with Mr Sandilanda for tho defendant. This was a daiin for ojoctment, with a counter claim for fulfi.nicnt of loose. Mr Ilorsloy, who as a trustee was interested 111 tlio case, whioh hud to do with tho Laasing of a cortnin piece of land at Halcoiubc, was examined at some length, and his evidence was nqt finished when tho oourt rose for the midday adjournment.