LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1461, 8 June 1912, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

DISPUTE OVER A GRAVE PLOT. COURT'S DECISION. SKTTI.EMKXT AGAIN HIHUIHSTKI). Mr. Justico Cnojior yeslerday dclivi-tcil reserved decision in a civil case, licard Inst month, in which a portion of the Imi'iul grouiul in the 'lioltim Hlreoi w<in«lery was the jn-incijiat Kiihjeet in dNrm(i>, and the action was lirnupht hy Ueoi'Ke J.olton, sell lor, iif WvlliiiKlmi, iipiinst ilai'tiu Jost'lih Ico, railway gnanl, of \Vi;llinston, mid Amy .Loiiisa l.ci'. his wife, claiming an injunction lo restrain tlio defendants from I'ni'lliei-.. Iresjinss. mid £W damiiKCs for alleged trespass. Jlr. A. Gray appeared for the nliiintiiV. and Mr. T. C. A. Jlislop for the del'eiidnnts. PlainlilY fet out in his statement of claim that ho was the owner of n plot of land (MJft. by Sit.) in the llofloii Street, cemetery, and that, on September 19, ltllO, the defendants (without permission) had erected a tombstone or .monument to the memory of Cecilia Tieehurst, who kid previously been inferred in the land, and the surface of the bind had been damaged and certain plants destroyed. Plaintiff asked for an injunction restraining the defendant's from continuing tile trespass so committed, and JilO damages' for such trespass, and such other relief as the Court might consider necessary. 'J'ho defence was a denial nf trespass. Defendant alleged that the. land mentioned in the statement of claim was formally vested in the trustees of the Church of England, but, on or about July 28, ISM, tho land had become vested in the Wellington City Corporation. It was further stated that the deed of licenso had not been executed in accordance with the formalities required by the law, ami that the plaintiff had never gained a renewal of the license. On February I), I!UU, defendant had obtained permission from the City Council to inter the body of Mrs. Tieehurst, and it was alleged that the tombstone had been erected with the. knowledge and consent of plaintiff. The actbn originally came before Mr. Justice Kdwards in September last, and on that occasion his Honour remarked lh.it it was a "lamentable thing" that tho case should have conic before the. Court. During that hearing it was announced that a settlement had boon arrived at whereby defendants would remove the body, and tho case was not proceeded with. During tho present civil sessions, the case was called again, when Mr. Gray informed Mr. Justice Cooper that plaintiff had been compelled to bring the action again us the agreement of September lust had not been carried out. AVhen giving judgment yesterday, his Honour said there, was not sufficient proof that defendants had applied to the Minister for Internal Affairs for leave to exhume 'the body. They had not fulfilled any part of their agreement with plaintiff, for even had they bce.'i unable to remove tho body there was nothing to. prevent the removal of the monument. The agreement could not now bo treated as a nullity to enable the original action to b9 reopened. Judgment would be for plaintiff', but tho terms of. tho decree would have to bo settled in Chambers. That would give tho parties an opportunity to arrive at an agreement'so that the monument' might remain on flic grave. The terms that had been submitted oby plaintiff appeared'to be very reasonable. Now that tho rights of the parties had been determined, some amicable arrangement might end this most unfortunate dispute. THE TRENTHAM CASE. adjotje'xkd FOR ARGUMENT. In tho Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Cooper, further evidence was heard in tiro case in which Udward Andrew Bonthorne, ironmonger, of Wellington, proceeded against Christina. Backstrom, wifo of Christian liackstrom, of Trcntham, for an injunction to restrain Mrs. liackstrom from using certain land for any purpose other than that of a road. Particulars of tho claim and (ho defence were published in yesterday's issue. Mr. F. E. Pcthcrick appeared for Bonthorne, and Mr. T. C. A. Hislop appeared for Mrs. Baclcstrom. Evidence was concluded late yesterday afternoon, and the casj was then adjourned until a suitable date following tho return of Mr. Justice Cooper to AVellington, when legal argument will be heard.