DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1339, 11 September 1886, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHT URTON—FRIDAY. (Before His Honor Mr Jufficj Ward.) CIVIL BUSINGS'*. BRIGGS V. PATCHING

Claim, £69 14a 2d —Mr for plaintiff, Mr Wilding for defendant The plaintiff’s particulars of claim set forth that in Sept, 1885, the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff a piece of land in the Ashburton survey district, containing by admeasurement one rood and twenty* four perches, and being part of section 14380, and also a piece of land lying adjacent thereto, and containing thirty-two perches, marked lot 21, for the sum of £IOO. It was agreed that the costs incidental to the transfer of the land should be borne equally by the plaintiff and defendant, and it was further agreed that the defendant should give the plaintiff immediate possession of the properly and execute a transfer in his favor. In pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff, by his agent, Mr Joseph Ward, on September 23, paid to the defendant the snm of £IOO, being the purchase money of the land, and the further sum of £2 8i 81 as his share of the costs of the transfer. The defendant gave possession of the lands to the

plaintiff, and the plaintiff entered into possession thereof, and cultivated and improved the same, and remained in undlspured. possession until July 12, 1886. The defendant duly transferred to the plaintiff lot 21, and also part of the other paddock, but hs refused to transfer the remainder Abont March 11 last the defendant, without the knowlege of the plaintiff, executed a tranfer of part of the land sold by him to the plaintiff to Valentine Ellen, who caused the said transfer to be registered, and who obtained a certificate of title to the said thirty-two perches. The plaintiff was ejected from the land, and he claimed a refund of the *um of £35 of the purchase money. la addition the p T aintiff claimed special damages as follows : Loss sustained through severance of plaintiffs land, £25; cost of erecting cowshed on land transferred by defendant to Ellen, pulling down and re-ereotlng same, £6; planting mhorocarpa fence, £2 ; interest on £35 for 352 days at 9 per ; cent, per annum, £2 14s 2d; total, £34 14 1 2d, thns making the whole claim, £69 14s 2d.

The defendant disputed the jurisdiction of the Court, He also denied the main features of the plaintiff’s allegations. Mr Parnell opened bis csss at some length. Mr Wilding raised the question of jurisdiction of the Court. He said one of the points the Court would have to determine was, who was the equdable owner, and therefore its jurisdiction was clearly ousted.

Hia Honor did net think the question of cqnitable ownership arose. The question was whether the plaintiff had paid for the land of which it was admitted Ellen was the owner.

Mr Wilding demurred to the Court’s jurisdiction, but went on to argue other po’Ws of the case with the view of showing that the plaintiff must be nonsuited, Mr Purnell argued that the Court had jurisdiction, and quoted authorities in support of bis contention.

Mr Purnell called 'ihomas Briggs, the plaintiff, who said : Knew defendant. Saw defendant abont purchasing some land belonging to him and in the occupation of Baylias, the “ Scotchman,” and the “Scotchman’s” father-in-law. Offered him £9O, but he did not accept it. Some time after, saw him near the field, again offered the amount, telling him wanted to complete h : s property. Defendant again refused. He did not say that any part of the field was sold There were no marks on the field to show that it had been cut up into lots, and witness did not know that anyone save Patching had any claim to it till Ellen oame on July 12 last. Witness appointed Mr Ward hia agent to arrange the purchase money. Saw Mr Ward twice afterwards about the matter. On the last occasion gave Mr Ward instructions to purchase the land for £loo* Some time afterwards got the key of the gate of the field with Patching’s permission; Went into occupation. Built a cowshed on the land lately taken possession of by Ellen, and also planted a macrocarpa fence Patching oame up frequently ; he coaid hardly fail to see the cowshed He never said witness was

occupying anybody else’s land. On Jnly 12, Ellen came to witness’s residence, and claimed one section of the field occupied by witness. When Mr Ellen appeared, witness had to remove the cowshed. ( 1 fer some argument, the claim for re-erecting the cowshed was struck out ) Witness was examined at some length as to the items of his claim. Would not have bought the land if he had known he would not get the section at present in Ellen’s possession. By Mr Wilding : Witness did not know exactly how much land he was to get. Mr Patching never made any representation on the point. Bayliss told witness lately that part of the land he had been renting had been sold: By Mr Pnrnell : Bayliss did not tell witness aboot the sale prior to Ellen's claim.

Joseph Ward said that Briggs gave him instructions to purchase some land from Patching. Pnrchased the land for £IOO, on condition that Patching paid half the cost of the deeds. Patching said the land comprised seven sections. Witness did not know the land, never having seen it. Witness believed Patching gave instructions for the preparation of the transfer.

W. Bayliss, farmer, living on Wakannl Boad, knew the land in question. He formerly occupied it. The conditions on which he held it were that he should have it for twelve months, on condition ho put up a fence. Mr Patching told him that one of the sections had been sold, but that it was not likely the owner would trouble witness for some time.

This was the plamtiff’s caso. Mr Wilding called W, Patching, who said : Agreed to sell seven sections to Briggs. Prior to that plain* iff came to his shop, where he raw a plan of the property, with the name of Y* Ellen on the section Ellen had bought. Briggs could see the laud was cut up in sections. When Mr Ward cime to arrange abontthe property witness pointed out the sections sold. By Mr Parnell: Witness told Mr Ward about three months after the land had been bought that Briggs was planting on the wrong section. This was the case for the defendant

The plaintiff was recalled by Mr Purnell, and said he had never seen a plan of the property with Y. Ellen’s name on the section till after Ellen made the claim. Mr Purnell addressed the Court on his client’s bebalt.

His Honor gave a verdict for the defen dant with costs.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Re James Bruce. —Application for order of discharge.—Mr Purnell for bankrupt. —Order granted, lie Adam Jackson.—Application for order of discharge.—Mr Cuthbertson for bankrupt.—Order granted. Costs. Mr Wilding, for Mr Crisp, moved for an order granting costa in the estate of James Tab, —Order granted. The Court than rose,