LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2208, 22 July 1914, Page 10

LAW REPORTS.

6 COURT OF APPEAL RIVAL RIVER BOARDS GROYNE IN THE WAIRAU An appeal from a decision of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) occupied tho attention of the Court of Appeal all day yesterday, when tho Bench was occupied by Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Justice Edwards, Mr. Justice Coo'per, and Mr. Justico Stringer. Tho original action was an application by tho Spring Creek ltiver Board to enforce ail injunction against the Lower YYairau Ri /er Board against the continuance of a groyne ill the bed of tho Wairau River. It was stated that this groyne had the effect of preventing water from flowing into the Opawa River. His Honour the Chief Justice had inspected tho ground, and had hoard argument on tho legal aspect of the case. He was forced to the 'conclusion that tho groyno complained of as now constructed was in the bed of the.rivor, and beyond its'ancient bank, and that in. ordinary flood would prevent tho flow of tho water in_ its accustomed channel, and tnat it might cause the water (and in time perhaps all t,lio water! to flow down the Wairau channel. He therefore ordered that tho groyno up ,to three chains of a given point be removed,'and directed tho defendant board to pay costs amounting to £50, with witnesses' expenses ana disbursements. From*this decision the Lower Wairau River Board appealed, on tho ground that it was erroneous in law. At the hearing of the appeal yesterday, Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. C. H. Mills, of Blenheim, appeared for the Lower Wairau River Board, while Mr. C. Pi Skerrett, K.C., with Mr. A. Rogers. of Blenheim, appeared for tho Spring Creek River Board. Argument had not concluded at 4.30 p.m., when the Court'adjourned until this morning. ■

SUPREME COURT. . A WILL TANGLE." A reserved judgment of Mr. Justice Hosking .was delivered by the Registrar of the Supreme Court yesterday m the case in which the opinion of tho Court was sought in regard to whom!should be, given oile of tho shares in tho residuary ostate of John Evans, deceased farmer, formerly of Waipukurau. The plaintiff was John Llewellyn Charles Merton, solicitor, of Waipukurau, oxecutor of tlib ostate of tho late John Evans, and the defendants wore Elizabeth Jones, married woman, of Maelor, Deganwy, Wales, and Adelaide Brookes, widow, of Llandudno, Wales. "At tho hearing, Mr. D. S. Smith ap-, ; peared for -the plaintiff ■ (Morton), Mr. .T. H. G. Murdoch, of Napier, vpneared for tlio executor of Elizabefli Jones (recently deceased), and Mr. T. jVave appeared for Adelaide Brookes. John Evans's will, after making provi-sion-for the-payment of'certain legacies,• directed that tho residuary estate should bo divided into two shares, one of these shares to go to "Eliza Brookes, of Llandudno, Wales,- tho daughter of my sister Eliza." Nono of the nieces of tho deceased answered the name of Eliza Brookes, but the riglit to tho share (an amount of £500) was claimed by two nieces, the defendants, Elizabeth Jonea mid Adelaide Brookes. Elizabeth Jones had lived with her mother in Llandddno at a place call-. "The Bricks," and for the sake of distinction she had been known as "Eliza Bricks." Several witnesses expressed themselves as. of opinion that the deceased (John Evans) had intended to leave tho half share in tho residuary estate to "Eliza Bricks," but that his intention had been mistaken, by tho solicitor drawing up_ tlio will. His Honour was of opinion that Elizabeth Jones (known as Eliza Bricks) was the person whom deceased had intended to mention in his will, and directed that tho share of the residuary estat<; should go to her executor. As' the action had arisen through the mistake of tho testator. the costs of all parties wore ordered to be paid out of tho estate.