SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 584, 12 August 1909, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

; ' CLAIM IfOB INjUNCj'llO^i ' Hearing of argument with rofertnco to th& / , case of Reginald Edwaid Beckctt, letned . merchalit; MartoU, versus tl»} District Land - 0 --Registrar iand others,! took. place before /Mn ' Justioo Cooper jestciday ill Dailco, i', . Mr. Collini appeared on behalf of plaintiff; Mr. \V. 11. I). 801 l fot NatlVo tic-, fendants; whilst the District Land Registrar nas not repiesented by counsel. . This-Svas .'aii'applicatdoii'for an injunction . to restrain the District Land Registrar from : bnnßing; ocrtalh land at Mai'toli mideiv tho: ■■■/■■a Land Transfer Act., The facts as alleged ■by < plaintiff were that ih IS&G one Rotimann. to. : ;"y Rangb. deposited 'iyith I- him the tit-lb c|c<*ds to i . - the land. Retimans te died -in 1895, and his, successors now applied to have tho I- ■■\r]andi-.brought"Alnder !" -a ■ was .. that the plaintiff /' had" no interest' m !. , . the iland' entitlingliifii to '.restrainTthe .repis-. : trar \ from ■ proceeding with tho application . brought by -tho ' JfatiVes. ■■ Another : defence t was tho.Statute: . ■; . , \* ' Mr. Collins cotitehdod that tho Statute (if' Y Limitations did not affect the question,'as it , . had; been decided that, although the pcrjod •s'*/of limitation-had-run^ of a.lien was still entitled to rely on that lieii V- \ ' ; 7 :; -V : : - i Mr. Bell submitted that plaintiff's position ■ would-not: bf> prejudiced by tihS ■ bringing 6f • the land Under the Act, because ,tho plain-, ; .v. jtifF ..Was." n6w/entitled'tp;kothing further-tho-n I : to: : hold tho title deeds, and this he ftight' • contiiiuO rto "do. even' after, tho land;■ was brought under the Act ' . His-'Honourj who remarked that'the qucsf ■ tion .at . issue was- one of considerable\irn- 1 ■ , portancc,;reserved his decision.. CONTRACT TO BUY SHARES. • 'A' case on appeal from the decision of Dr. 7. ■ M'Arthiir, ' S.SL,--occupied the attentidii ;of . his Honour Mr. Justice Chapman on Tuesday, and argument was continued yes- ■. torday. David Hope Johnston, , settler, ' . formerly of Wellington,; plaintiff in. tli3 C6Urt.' .: from ';: the; 'decision .'.giving' j judgniMt'agiinSt iclaini .f6r:£so ; f6r., the return of . a deposit paid. by. him oft 'drl 'agreement for.-the purchase .of; shares ! in f-ho Wollmgton Dairy Company,> Ltd, {defcftddnfc). Tho.membttfs of tho cbppariy—-Messrs; .WiL' 1 son, Jolly, and' Home—had. also been made "■f/'i' defendants,- aifd for, f £150.." Judgment had. been-given on their favout- for £10. Mr. ,Gray appeared.on behalf of the appel- . : lant, Mr.' Brown\for. the' respondent Hornej , and 'Air. Blair for the other respondents; ! . • The grounds of. appeal were that the ' judgment was: wrong in law and in . fact; appellant: .alleging-,uiat-- the"'; contact':.: hiu : ; tbeehMnduced'Jby'.ymiWepr&eiltatiori and was i ' legally not enfQrceable. -He (ilai'iaed, there-, r ; fore/ , : tot;be^titledytb^' ttei ;r£c6very;; ; qf::fcis deposit, arid contended' that • damages oil: .» , tho Counter-claim could not validly bo yivdo against him. Hi 3 Honour reserved-judgment) : A MASTERTON ESTATE- . -An originating summoM ift re the; .will of Brown Hunt (c!eceased), -Mastfirton, came on tor hearing before-Mr.,.Justice .Chapman i(i Banco .yesterdayw By consent an, order wad - made under the Family- Protection Act; Mr. : D. M. Fmdlay appeared -M ■ tie - pfairitiff, -' Mr. M'Donald fdr, the' PubKc Truiteey and ■■ Mr. A. It. Atkinson-for -the. defendants, •v.' 1 ■