Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

VARIATION OF A DEED. SOUGHT

An application for the variation of a deed in regard to . the possession of some land (a section a little over nine acres) at Featherstont occupied the attention of His Honour Sir. Justice Edwards in the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The plaintiff was Elizabeth Dunn while the defendants were Alice Toiversey, Richard Thomas Saunders, and Herbert Lincott Williams. The plaintiff is 67 years of age, and the defendant, Mrs. Towersey, is a daugh-ter-in-law, the other defendants being trustees under the deed of settlement. The plaintiff, it appeared, had handed over her property to Mrs. Towersey on certain conditions, including the understanding that she should be properly looked after, but, according to her statement, the arrangement had not worked satisfactorily. It was now contended on behalf of the plaintiff (Mrs. Dunn) that a mutual mistake having been made in several respects, and the. deed not . setting out clearly what the parties had in mind, it was open to the Court to set the deed aside or insert a general power of revocation.

For the .defence it was pointed out that it would be inequitable for the Court to interfere, as the parties 'ceuld not be restored to their original positions. In any case there was no suggestion of equitable fraud, and theretore thn deed could not be set aside.

1 : Mr. P. Levi appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. A. S. Menteah for the defendant (Mrs. Towersey). The trustees submitted-to the judgment of the Court. After hearing legal _ argument, His Honour reserved decision, LICENSING CASE! An appeal against a decision of Mr. D. G. A. Cooper, S.M., was heard in the Supremo Court yesterday morning before 'His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman. The point involved is of some importance to hotel licensees. In the original action, decided in October last, Christopher Jansen, licensee of the Wellington Hotel, was charged by the police (Constable R. R.- Miiler being the informant) with having on September US permited drunkenness on his premises. The evidence-of the police was to the effect that a man named John Saul was found drunk in the bar shortly after 8 p.m. The licensee was away at Otaki at the time, and the Magistrate was called upon to decide whether he could, bo held responsible for the action of his barman .(Woods) in permitting a 'drunken 'man to remain in the bar. The Magistrate dismissed the charge on the followiug groundsill) That as the defendant, with . his wile, was absent, and could have- no Icnowledge that the drunken man was on his premises, he _ could not in law be convicted of permitting drunkenness there.

(2) That there being no evidence that the defendant, whilst absent, had dolegated his authority "to the barman, he was not responsible for the wrongful acti of the barman.

Against this decision the Crown appealed on the grounds that it was erroneous in point of law. _ The question for determination by His Honour was whether or not the licensee was responsible for the drunkenness being permitted.. '

•Mr. H. H. Ostler (of the Crown' Law Office) appeared ill support of the appeal, and Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. V. B. Willis appeared for the respondent. _ After argument had been heard, His Honour reserved his decision.'

BARRETT'S HOTEL. • Sitting in Chambers in the Supremo Court yesterday, His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) heard » summons for accounts in regard io Barrett's Hotel, Lambton Quay, Wellington,' over a period during which A., M. Lewis (plaintiff in the, summons) and Gilmer' and Maguire (defendants) were partners in the lease of the premises. Mt.-C.--B. Morison, K.C., appeared tor Lewis, while Mr. A.. W. Blair appeared for Gilmer and Maguire. , After hear- 1 inp: argument, His Honour 1 made the followinc 'order:. "That tlio partnership accounts be taken by the Registrar; that evidence be taken on all disputed items over £10, and that this evidenco be submitetd to the Judge for decision." The question of. costs of the summons was reserved. . i, .

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150219.2.7.1

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2389, 19 February 1915, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
666

VARIATION OF A DEED. SOUGHT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2389, 19 February 1915, Page 3

VARIATION OF A DEED. SOUGHT Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2389, 19 February 1915, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert