SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 203, 2 September 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2. (Before Sir George Arney, Chief Judge.)

MOHI MANGAKAHIA T. CHAI&,

Application to dissolve injunction granted to Mohi against Craig. This was an adjourned case from last Court day, -when the appellant's (Craig) solicitor (Mr. Hesketh) was heard at great length in support of the argument for dissolution of tho injunction. To-day, Mr. MacCormick appeared to support the injunction. Mr. MacCormick proceeded to answer, seriatim, the arguments adduced by the other side. He proceeded to point out arguments in answer to the affirmation on the other side, that no sufficient urgency had been shown in applying for the injunction. The action had first been commenced on the 18th May, and tho injunction had not been applied for until the 24th June. The reason of this was that defendant had done nothing after the action was commenced for some time, but immediately the defendant had begun to remove the timber in order to cut it up the plaintiff came up to town and obtained the injunction. He thought the affidavits plainly showed that there was urgency shown. As to the argument that it was not shown that clanger was imminent, the learned counsel quoted "Drury on Injunctions," page 3GB, to show what the law considered imminent danger, and pointed out that the affidavits p'ainly showed that there was danger, imuiinent danger, of the defendant removing the timber. The plaintiff had been accused of laches in not proceeding more rapidly with the suit. Now, a charge of laches could not be brought against infants, married people— people «"» compos mentis. Surely, then, you could not charge a native who was, it might be said, ignorant of his legal rights with laches in this matter. The affidavits, however, showed that the defendamt had been acting in spite of repeated warnings from plaintiff to desist. The defendant also relied on the fact of a purchase from the natives in 1832 or 1863,, for his right to cut down timber. The foundation of his right, as he put it, was tho doing of an illegal act; for at that time an Act was in operation preventing all dealings in land or timber with the natives under a penalty of not less than £5, or. more than £100, to be recovered in a summary way. Under this so-called right he sold to Harris & Laurie, and soon afterwards resumed possession of the mill, but he did not show by what means he regained possession ; then again, the defendant says that the plaintiff actually encouraged him to cut down the timber. The answer was that he was allowed to do so, under the impression that the defendant wns to pay for the timber. But he had failed to do so, and had not paid for it to thi3 day, nor offered to do so. Then, again, Eiria was not one of the native owners wiih whom the original contract was made. But subsequently her right was acknowledged, and money was paid to her, acknowledging her right. If the Whole of the money had been paid to this natiive, in order to carry out the alleged bargain, it would not be right in a Court of Equity to allow the plaintiff to take advantngi of the Act prohibiting dealing with the natives ; but the money had not been paid, and the defendant had persisted in his wrong-doing, in spite of remonstrance and actual violence used to make him desist. As to the objection made on the other side of tho suppression of material facts, one fact alleged to be suppressed was the appearance on the part of the defendant. Mr. MacCormick alleged that abundant proof was given of the appearance. (Left Sitting.)