SUPREME COURT, HAMILTON

Waikato Times, Volume 88, Issue 13512, 19 June 1917, Page 4

SUPREME COURT, HAMILTON

CIVIL SITTINGS. Tlio civil sittings of the Supreme Court were resumed yesterday afternoon. Application for an Injunction. Tua Hotene and others (Mr Quarterly), v. the Morrinsville Town Board (Mr Gilchrist), for injunction, etc. Tliis was a crre in which certain lands were sought to be taken as ,a recreation reserve by the Town Board, under a proclamation, it being admitted that the plaintiffs, as tenants in common, were in possession at the time, and were still in potfession of the said lands. Counpel for plaintiffs referred to the fact that a commission bad already been held in regard to the matter, submitting that this was irrelevant, and did not affect the present action. The validity of the proclamation was also questioned, and it wa' stated that certain buildings and improvements were on the land. Counsel said that it was •submitted by plaintiffs that the Town Board did not want the area in question, which was valuable land, merely as a recreation reserve alone, but wanted to secure power from the Piako River running through the property. Counsel submitted that the procedure to l>e adopted in the taking of the lands in question should be the same as in regard to ordinary European lands; that the said lands were not native lands within the meaning of the Native Lands Act, and that the whole proceedings were had, in that the procedure of the Section was not followed —the consent of the Governor-in-CounciT not having been obtained, etc. Counsel further stated that certain fishing rights were also included in the portion of the river .-ought to be taken, and alleged that the proceedings were contrary to the rights of the natives under the Treaty of Waitangi.

Counsel for defendant s"'v. mitted that all steps under Section 18 had been taken, and notices given. His Honor said that 1 acre 2 mods and 33 nerches had been taken without notice havine been civen to the natives and also had included bed of the river, and that upon own ndroission land upon which the building stood had been taken without the consent of the Governor-in-Conncil. and also included land in respect of which ooparently no notice to take had been given.

Counsel argued that still they had a pood title , under the Land Transfer Act.

Mr Ouarferlv nihmitted that on the whole interests and rghts of the natives had been improperly infringed, and asked tha 1 the Court declare the proclamation to be invalid, and ox. pimped from the records Judgment was reserved. Brother versus Brother.

James Lydon (Mr Finlay) v. Michael Lydon (Mr MacDiarmid)," for £7l alleged to be clue for interest; counfwrelaim for £l5O moneys alleged to le lent, etc. Counsel for defendant briefly outlined the facts of the case, which shewed that both parties to the fiction were Irishmen, and that defendant, acting upon certain representations made by his brother, who had t->U-n up land at Pio Pio, agreed to :oq' > over from Quoe"«'.and to New Z*a<in-1 to join him on the farm. Defeuo'.int thereupon came over with his family, and did a considerable amount of work in addition to advancing money and building a house on pla ; ntiff's property. His Honor, at this stage, said it wa,s a pity to see two brothers coming to Court, especially when the amount concerned was not very large, and fl-k----ed could not a settlement be arrived at?

Counsel replied that there did not seem to be much chp.nce of a settlement, defendant, holding that he should not be required to pay interest. Continuing, he stated that defendant eventually agreed to take over the place as a goinc concern, no interest to be pa'd on the balance of the purchase money, for which a second mortgage was given.

Defendant gave evidence in support of counsel's statement, alleging that when he came over he found the place to he a perfect desert. His family worked like slaves, and subseipientlv he took the place over suhjeet to a Government loan of £SOO, at £lO 10s per acre. Defendant protested to his hrotlier that the price was too much, and that he had been deceived in regard to the farm, whereupon his brother agreed to charge no interest.

Cross-examined : He considered that his brother had treated him most d><rracefully. and that he (defendant) had been met soft and foolish. Denied asking Kennedy not to purchase the place, but asked him not to buy vntil he (defendant! had settled down. Witness admitted that the trouble oeeurred when plaintiff demanded the Government loan moneys, which he (witneis) claimed he was entitled to. Witness was upon the point why he signed the agreement which made provis'on for interest payable at 5 per cent., and said that be must have done so from ignorance, and did not understood it. He admitted, further, that • probably Mr Finlav read the agreement over clause bv clause before signing. The amount c* £30(1 credited to him was not for wages, but in respect to of his place in Queensland, and exnense in eoming over. Witness* admitted that Irs brother threw in other things, pigs. etc., after the agreement had been signed.

After further evidence, judgment was given for plaintiff for £4O interest and reserved in regard to the counter claim.