SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1431, 4 May 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

WEIT OF PKOHIBITION GRANTED. THE KIOSK CASE. Reserved decision was delivered by Mr. Justice Chapman in the Supremo Court yesterday in an action in which a writ of prohibition was r askcd to prevent plaintiffs from acting upon a judgment obtained in the Lower Court in the caso of the Kelburne and Karon Tram Co., Ltd., v. Maxwell Spens-Black. It appeared that on April 11 the company proceeded against Maxwell Spens-Black for possession of the Kelburne Tea Kiosk and for £il Os. 2d., rent alleged to ba due on that business. ' At tho hearing, Mr. Izard, for plaintiffs, i had stated that the claim was one for I possession of the premises, tho lease of I which had ended, and for rent in arrears. Defendant had had a three months' lease, which had expired on Do- ! ceraber 20, 1911, and he had exercised a right to renew this lease. Tho renewed leaso had ended on March 20, 1912. Defendant had been applied to for possession, but had not left the premises. On behalf of defendant, Maxwell SpensBlack, Mr. Neavo had- addressed the Court with a view to showing that defendant's lease did not expire until June 20. This, ho said, was clear from the provisions of tho lease. Ho held, also, that as tho terms of tho lease would have to be construed, owing to the documents' ambiguity, tho Lower Court should not adjudicate in tho matter. On April IG, Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., who heard tho caso, delivered his judgment in favour of tho plaintiffs. Tho issue of a warrant for iinmediato possession was granted, but was suspended for soven days. , , . Subsequently Mr. Neave asked that plaintiffs be prohibited from further proceeding on tho judgment on tho ground that it was granted without jurisdiction. Hia Honour's decision, delivered yesterday was to the effect that tho questions raised in the original action were mich that ther could not bo decided by the magistrate. They directly involved the construction of an instrument, which was bv no moans unequivocal in terms, with a'view of determining whether the plaintiff had acquired a vested leasehold estate in tho land or not. That raised a distinct question of title. His Honour was of opinion that the order for prohibition should bo made, with costs Xo as.

ROBISON AND SANSON. Argument was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Sim in the Now Plymouth care--Mom« Cnrr Bobbon r. Henrj Samoa, ]ua.-«i Mtioa

for specific performance of an agreement to exchange farm lands. P .Air. 11. J). Hell, K.C., with him Mr. .0 ■T. Ji. Nov, of New Plymouth, appeared ,8 for the plaintiff, and Mr. C I'. »mfl , s K.C., with him. Mr. U. Spencc, of hlrat- s ford, for the defendant. . « Evidence had previously been ncard at ( New I'lvmouth, The land involved in { the case was .Matakami Island, a lowking stretch opposite Tamanga lsiami. i some £000 acres nf which were purchased |» bv Hobisnn in 11)10 at 12s. lid. per aero. ,f Kobison effected improvements, and aticr ;( eleven months occupation- sold in the (ID- ,e fendant at .£3 10s. per acre. As part U pavment, Kobison took over defendants { improved farm of 1200 acres, near ntrat- , ford, and a large sum remained on mon- | ( gage, Defendant took over Kobison s liiort- a ga"e to Bavlv (original owner of Mata- 1 kaiia) of 'Mti<i. When it cam© to completing the agreement, however, the «e- j fendant (Sanson) refused to complete, anu |< alleged that Kobison had been guilty ot u fraudulent misrepresentation. .( After hearing lengthy _ argument, nis , Honour reserved liis decision. I