LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 565, 21 July 1909, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL,

RIVER EROSION.

A PALMERSTON PROPERTY CASE U ' The-Court .of Appeal'-sittings, wero,-con-tinued yesterday; tho Bench'comprising their Honours- Justices' -Williams ■ (Acting-Chief Justice), Denmston; • Edwards, Cooper, and Chapman' -~ . i This, was-a.<case .touching erosiotj --by,. tho Manawatu-River. -Prank, I'earco.Snow, far-. • mer, of Palroerston - North, owner: of; certain land- bounded by the. river), subdivided -his ; proporty- •in ,1897, - and i'tendered- a silbdivisional' plan rfor./deposit.- .It was-, found, however; that-subsequent, to the .issue-of his title, the: nver had-worn 'down its banks and gradually; eaten - a - considerable way. into his land. ■ The ; 'Uistnct i Land. 'Registrar .refused to accept the subdivisional plan, as- it showed the old driver bank 'as -tho-. boundary of tho allotments. The owner then, amended .the plan showing the river baiik.as tlio boundary. '. The'allotments, woro .Bold, and.-new-: certificates p. of - title were, issued., showing the land bounded by the river bank. A balance certificate; .was. issued by ..the .District Land Registrar...m 1906 for the .land . between .the nvor, boundary (bank) shown on the subdivisions!. plan,-, and, the, river boundary showh : on,th6idriginal v certlficate,of;,titlo.. Subsequently, the Itegist-rarcalled upon the owner .to- deliver';Up this ,balanco certificate to be cancelled; , upon the. grounds the, : land; it: roferred ,to had ~ been ,wrongly.-: 1%. eluded in- the certificate., of-, titlo, and, that Snow was not entitled to the land. . A motion brought, by tho •Registrar-., 111,tho. Supremo Court at Palmerston North -was dismissed by Mr- Justice .Chapman, who. held4hat<the land shown in the 'original certificate., of title befonged to' tho' defendant/ hotmthstandJiig that the river ..had' eaten -it away, and, .that - the river boundary was now -part ..of the-.bed of the river '' f 11 The District -Land^Registrar■ appealwLfrom - this - decision. ■-' Mr. C- -.-P.- Skerrett, -, and Mr H ffi Ostler, appeared for the Registrar, and Mr ,C A. Jjonghnan (Palmerston North) fot tho respondent (Snow). 1 ' Additional , facts -.were v placed .bpfor© -the Court by Mr. Skerrett ' It had been stated in v .the Court below that the 'land mentioned, in 'respondentia title .extended ;Op]y to the hank of tho river, .whereas it really oxtended to the middle of the nverhod ' jAfter counsel had 'addressed the Court, an 1 adjournment' was . made: untilto-morrow morning. i SUPREME COURT.

' IN CHAMBERS. '

THE EORO}\ HENUA BLOCK In • gmng. -judgment.-yesterdaysin-. -regard, to the matter of Horov/Lenua Block .No. 11, heard on , Thursday .last; \Mr- Justice Chapman- said that/ on.- June 4,:. notice had .been given at Palmerston North ,of an.: application to. remove an order • ,pf - - the -. Appellate Court into the Supreme Court,' a- view to -having-.-it. quashed. 1 , The .case-yas: heard, by Mr- Justico : Sim ■ at--Palmerston -North on June • 24, • ani- the Judge: intimated, that ;; he- /thought- it; should /go- , the Court, ; of.^A'ppeal. l ; l Mr.!.'B,a!dwiii, /Bphiaw: had filed tne notiM' of . mptiob,;;wrote '.aeairing ;to; abandon it,' /: and.;' offered;; -to/, pay fthe - ooats, v-but tho'Crowii. Soliciferj t-er prcceediiig - under fcW order mado' by "Mr; r Justice Sim.- ;'Mr;; ,/S&errett' ''had i;nioyed,;.-in '/Chambers to discharge/Xtbe - order.r.oh. r/tie gro'uiMls that .-it. oughtnot-t^'-havo;; : been ofawii/ up and ; sealeid" after -Mrl :BpJdwin;;had abandoned the motion, - and- that the -abandon- ; ihent: was a/discontinuMK)e of-;an. uide^)endent -proceeding.'.;•' His 'Honour .was' satisfied that Mr. w Bald win's/'.letter, -/could onlyrbo read .-.as an.- intimation: of-, his intention to ./proceed, and not -,as: ai proceeding ,binding the- other, parties, ;as ,a discontinuance,-woulu bind them. The' propcT course .for, the applicant to .follow was-,to apply to-have, his motion dismissed, or/leave- ityto-his opponents ito .do so. - Seeing-that ,;the <order ,was: pronounoed and:, minuted ..jni his Hononr ■ whether, .even \if he, had thought■ that, the' order -had been ,wrongly ■diawji up and/sealed, :this/would have-been 'the- proper ■Courtvui-;whichito :Complain.;:.,: J An order of -removal- completely removed -a: matr. ter;into the- control of - another.: Court.'' That Court had even acted on the order-by; giving leave-to set the-caao down.. It :was true tlrnt this-.was ■ ;on' an/.- cx .parte but it was, an otder-that that Court: alone cculd. discharge. 1 The-motionwaa-,dismiss©d,--with costs £3 -Bs.r,to;>the. Chief ■ Judge,-and £4 4s. to the Native owners

Mr C P Skerrett, KC,'appeared in support of the motion,' Mr H D. Bell, jun , for the Crown (representing the Chief Judgo of the Native Land Court, and the Departments interested), and Mr M«nteath for various Native's under "the existing titles /