A FIXED BUILDING.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1630, 23 December 1912, Page 6

A FIXED BUILDING.

NO RIGHT TO TAKE IT AWAT. j Rather an interesting point was in- , volved in a Palmerston North case, m \ which) judgment was delivered by the , Court of Appeal on Saturday, the ques- , tion being as to whether a wilding was j a "fixture" upon a certain block ol land. , The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) pre- , sided on Saturday, and associated with : him were: Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. , Justice Edwards, and Sir. Justice Cooper. : The parties were: Williaw. Bryant Vater , Pearce farmer, of Rangiotu, ■ appellant, and Hare Rakena To Awe Awe, male aboriginal Native, of Rangiotu, respon- , e jlr. P. E. Baldwin, of Palmerston North, appeared for Pearce, while Mr. H. Gilford Moore, of Palmerston North, appeared for Hare Eakona Tβ Awe Awe. In the original action. Hare Rakena le Awe Awe proceeded against William Bryant Vater Pearce to recover the sum of .£3OO damages for wrongful rein oval ota house from land. It appeared that in May, 1891, Hare and other Natives became registered proprietors of 400 acres of land known as Lower Aorarmi, 3&. 215. Later they leased the land for 21 jeai» to Michael O'Connor, who subsequently transferred his interest. to Pearce (tho defendant in the action m the Court below) Penro3 remained m possession until the leaee expired in May last. In Aiitnisfc t!W7 the Native Land Court partitioned the block, and Hare (plaintiff in (lie action in the Court below) was awarded one part, now known as Lot 3, of Lower Aorangi, 3G 28, and containing tl owes. Now, during the currency of the lease Pearce erected ,i dweHjnghouso on Lot 3, and this dvellinghouse was (according to Hare) a fixture, and as such was part and parcel of the freehold. In May last (so Hare alleged) Penrce wrongfully removed this fixture. Hence the claim for damages. _ The defence was a general denial, but Mr. Justice Chapman, who heard tho case at Palmerston North, hold that Hare had made out his case, and accordingly pave judgment in his favour for ,£225 damages and costs. From this decision the defendant Penrce appealed on the ground thnt it was erroneous in law and fact. The unanimous opinion of their Honours was that the appeal should lie dismissed with costs on the middle boolo as from a distance-