ON A GRAVE PLOT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1240, 23 September 1911, Page 13

ON A GRAVE PLOT.

WHAT WILL THEY SAT IN HEAVEN ? A portion of the burial ground in. the Bolton Street cemetery was tho. principal subject in an action brought by George Bolton, settler, of Wellington, against Martin Joseph Lee. railway guard,- of Wellington, and Amy Louisa Lee, his wife, claiming an injunction to restrain tho iatter from further trespass, and .£lO damages for alleged trespass. Mr. A. Gray appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Bl K. ICirkcaldie for the' defendants. Plaintiff set out in his statement of claim that he was tho owner of a plot of land (14!-ft. by Bft.) in the Bolton Street cemetery, and that, on .September 19, 1910, the defendants (without permission) had erected a tombstone or monument to tho memory of Cecilia Ticehurst, who had previously been interred in tho land, and the surface of tho land had been damaged and certain plants destroyed. Plaintiff asked for an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing tho trespass so committed, and ,£lO damages for such trespass, and such other relief as the Court might consider necessary. Tho defence was a denial of trespass. Defendant alleged that the lands mentioned in tho statement of claim woro formally vested in tho trustees of tho Church of England, but, on or about July 28, 1891, tho lands had become vested in the Wellington City Corporation. It was further stated that tho deed of license had not been executed in accordance with the formalities required by tho law, and that the plaintiff had nover gained a renewal of tho license. On February 3, 1910, defendant had obtained permission from the City Council to inter the body of Mrs. Ticehurst, and it was alleged that tho tombstone had been erected with tho knowledge and consent of plaintiff. , During Mr. Gray's opening his Honour interjected that ho thought it a very lamentable thing that pooplo should fight about those graves. , Mr. Gray agreed, but asked what they wero to do. His Honour: I don't say that your clients are to ■ blamo. Mr. Gray (continuing) stated that Mr. Bolton hail no objeotion to allowing tho tombstone to remain, but he wished tho base set back to tho line of other tombstones placed there by himself.^ Mt. Kirkcaldie informed his Honour that he had done his best to arrango a settlement. . Mr. Gray contended that his client bad granted conccssion atber concession to Lee. .His' Honour said it resolved itself into a, question o£ costs. ■ During tho courso of further discussion the Judge remarked: "I expect these people are going to meet their relatives in heaven. What are they going to say to them about this squabble?" Mr. Gray: I don't know, your Honour, I don't know whether they have even considered it. Just before tho luncheon hour tho ad. journment was taken, and his Honour intimated that ho would visit the cemetery. When tho Oonrt resumed in the afternoon it was announced that tho parties had come to a friendly settlement. CHAMBER APPLICATION; BLENHEIM CASE. In Chambers yesterday, befoTO Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. G. H; Fell appeared in support of an application—Leslie v. the Blenheim Borough Councilr-to havo an

award referred back to tho arbitrators in Blenheim for consideration. Mr. R. M'Callum, on behalf of tho Borough Council, opposed the application. It appeared that tho council agreed with Leslio to purchase some of his land, and a condition of the agreement (which was to bo binding ill honour) was that tho prico should bo fixed bv arbitration. Tho arbitrators conferred before an umpire, who did not agree with eithor of tnem, and the arbitrators, being .under tho impression that one of them must have tho umpire to agree with them, decided that they could mnko no award. The application that tho matter should bo referred back was made on tho ground that the decision was not a proper award, and that it was a mistaken idea that tho umpire must agree with ono of the arbitrators. Decision was reserved.