A PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 35, 10 February 1905, Page 5

A PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL.

THE CROWN WIKS. j (By Cable. —Press Association. —Cbpyrigint.) LONDON. February 9. The Judicial Committee or the Privy Council has dismissed the appeal in the | case of Riddiford versus the King. : CBj- Telegraph. — Picas Association.* j " — ~~~ WELLINGTON, Thursday. The Premier received a cable message from London to-day announcing the success of tb.p Crown in the ease of the King versu3 Riddiicrd recently argued before ; the Privy Council. The Crown brought ■an action in 1002 to recover possgs3ien of certain land at the Hutt from Mr. E. ■J. Riddiford. which had been in his possession since 1885. he having taken a conveyance from a vendor tvho had been :in occupation since IS7C. The land was pait of a section which had been selected, and of which possession had been taken by a man named Partridge in IS4I, under a land order of the New Zealand Company. Partridge and another, who wai a partner with him. sold parts of the land in IS4I, and partitioned the balance in 1343, Partridge taking as his share the land which included that in question between the Crown and Mr. Biddiford. From time to time claims were made and investigated, until the Acts in force relating to the New Zealand Company's :ands, and grants were iasued in respect of the whole cf the sections oriirinally selected by Partridge, with the ■xeeption of. the parts taken by Partridge on partition i.i 1543. which included the land in question. As to this land the record? showed no claim under the Acts or under Crown grant, nor was there ajoy evidence of any claim or grant. The land was comprised in a grant from the Crown 10 the >Jew Zealand Company in 1545, but in 1850. on the aurrender of che com?>auv's charter, the land reverted to vhe ' Crown by law. subject to any contract ! which should then be iubsistiag in regard j 10 it. The N'esv Zealand Company's land '-■!aim ordinuncr , . 1851, recited that no conveyance in fulfilment of land orders '.Lad been made by the company. The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Mr. Justice Edwards, holding that the .'rotrn waa entitled to recover possession. Mr. Riddiford appealed to the Privy Council, which has now upheld the decision of the Appeal Court.