SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1272, 30 October 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

THE ROADS IN THE HALL ESTATE. QUESTION OF METAL. Mr. Justico Chapman delivered judgment in tho Supreme Court on Saturday in an originating summons taken out toy William iiober ]srifrhh<-»]I, onr.trnotn-. if Majoribanks Street, Wellington, and Jeha Beck Finlay, agent, of Wel.ington, calling upon George Grevillo Bridges, District Land Registrar at Wellington, to substantiate and uphold tho grounds of his refusal to accept plans as on deposit and to register dealings affecting certain lands of the "llall Estate," Pahiatua County. Tho proceedings were under the Land Transfer Act, 100 S. At tho hearing, Mr. T. F. Martin appeared for tile plaintiffs, Brightwell and Finlay, and Mr. C. B. IvTorison, with him Mr. ilarold Smith, of I'ahiatua, for the I'ahiatua County Council, trlio defended tho action.

Plaintiffs are tho owners of the Hall F/stato in tho county of Pahiatua, and tlie estate was subdivided for sale, and roads wars formed through it. On February i of the present year, the County Council passed a resolution to the effect that- the roads had been formed satisfactorily. At a later date, that body called; upon Brightwell and Finlay to metal tho roads under the Public Works Amendment Act, 1910, and at ttio same time instructed the District Land Registrar to refus-o to accept tho plans of the subdivision of the estate as 011 deposit, or to register dealings affecting tho lands as tho roads had not teen constructed to tho satisfaction of tho County Council. Brightwell and Finlay denied their liability in regard to the metalling of the road's, and. relying on the council's resolution of February 1, 1911, they brought tho present proceedings. The Public Works Amendment Act, 1910 (by a schedule amendment), provides that the roads shall be formed, a:id, if required, metalled to the satisfaction of the County Council. Prior to this amendment county councils (with the exception of the Selwyn County Council') had 110 power !o demand that tho roads should be metalled.

His Honour, 011 the facts placed before him, held that the roads had been constructed to tho satisfaction of the Pa-liia-tua County Council.

Plaintiffs were allowed .£lO 10s. costs, to be paid out of the insurance fund, and tho Registrar was allowed .£ls los., to come from the same source.

CHANGE OF VENUE GRANTED. PICTURE THEATRE CASE. In the Supreme Court on Saturday, tho Chief Justice' (Sir Robert Stout) delivered judgment on a motion relative to an action concerning a partnership in a picture theatre at Hastings. Tho parties were Frederick Charles Hartshorn and Joseph Daniel Rivers, plaintiffs, and Richard Sorsnsoa, defendant, all of Hasli ngs. ill-. 11. D. Bell, IC.C., with him Jlr. E. J. i'itzgibbon, appeared for the plaintiffs, but the defendant was not represented. In tho main action Hartshorn and Rivers prayed that tho Court should declare the partnership dissolved, that an account be taken of the assets and liabilities of the partnership, that the assets be sold through the Court by a solicitor independent of the parties, that Hartshorn and Hivers and Sorenson respectively liavo a right to tender for the assets, that Sorenson be charged in taking tho account with interest on his portion of the moneys which he ought to have provided from "the date when such moneys ought to havo been brought with the partnership account that any surplus be divided •otp.iallv, and that in the meantime Hartshorn and Rivers be appointed receivers and managers. In the statement of defence Sorenson denied that Hartshorn and Rivers had ever made any request to him in regard to the moneys alleged to have been found by them. He was now, and always had Iwou, ready and willing to find his share of all moneys properly expended when a proper account was rendered to him. Sorenson denied that his state of health was such as to incapacitate him from acting as a partner. Ho further denied that he was unable to provide funds, and contended that if the partnership wore dissolved ho would be involved in serious loss. What the Court was concerned with in the present instance was a motion by Hartshorn and Rivers for judgment on the ground that certain admissions established that the partnership between Hartshorn and Rivers and Sorenson was at will, and that the admissions entitled Hartshorn and Rivers to tho decreo asked for in the statement of claim. In the event of the main action having to bo heard, change of venue to Wellington was asked for on the ground that the issues required to be settled promptly, and the point, which had not previously been raised, was argued at some length by Mr. Fitzgibbon. His Honour dismissed tho motion for judgment, but granted chango of venue, and the case has been set down for hearing at the next civil sittings of the Supreme Court in Wellington.