SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2307, 28 September 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) REGINA V. WHITE. In this case Her Majesty the Queen seeks to have a Crown grant, which was issued to the defendant in error, delivered up to be cancelled. The proceedings were brought under a writ of scire facias. Mr Macassey and Mr Haggitt appeared for the Crown ; Mr Smith and Mr Harris for the defendant. The facts of the case arc shortly as follow: —On the 25th October, 1858, the defendant made application to the Waste L ind Board, under the Band Regulations of 1858, to purchase sections fl, 11, 13, and 15, block 1, Tomahawk Valley district, “as per annexed tracing or sketch,” which sketch, however, was not now forthcoming. The same day the application was approved by Mr Short, acting Chief Commissioner of the Waste Land Board. At the time the application was m ule the only' imp in use in the department, and from which the defendant could Inve selected the land which he wanted to purchase, was what was called the “ selection map,” which showed the boundaries of the sections applied for. But some time after the application was made, another map was prepared from the original working plan of the district. That plan, by mistake, showed the boundaries of the sections to be hey'ond what they' should bo. [lnstead of bc'n' described as being bounded towards the VV.N.W. by a road line, the sections were described in the grant as bounded on the W.N. W. by sections 9, 10, 11, and 12, block 2]. It was error on the part of the draughtsman in the survey office, an error that did not prejudice the defendant in any' way ; because he had purcascd his section from the original selection map, and by it the sections were hounded by the re 1 line. Moreover this second map was not until a great number of years after the defendant had purchased, exhibited to purchasers of land, and when it was it was only by request. Besides it there was a map prcpaicd for the purpose of preparing Crown grants, and 011 this map the same mistake appeared as on the other one. The error was not discovered for a great length of time ; the grant was forwarded to the Governor, signed by him. returned to the proper office, and then issued without the error being discovered, and probably it would not have been d scovered up to the present time if the defendant ha I not closed up the road line. After he received his grant, the road line, which was the only outlet for certain settlers in the district, was formed, and he assisted in ils formation. 'ihe road was used by the settlers in 18(57, when the defendant, having heard that another settler in the neighborhood had been compensated for an error similar to this one, closed up the road with a view of getting compensation too—by placing a fence across it. 'J he Government were referred t ■, and they authorised the breaking down of the fence by the settlers, which was done at a point fixed by' the suiveyor. It remained open for a short time, when it was again blocked up by defendant. The Goven ment had therefore to resort to the pr sent proceedings. They could not exercise the power given them under the grant to take a road Otift. wide through the land, because the five years had expired ; neither could the provisions of the Crown Grant Act be complic I with, because the defendant refused to allow the error to be rcctiticJ. The only terms he would agree to were, outpayment of conr ensation, which was consiaeicl to he exorbitant, and a had precedent. _ Defendant originally paid L2O for the sections, and now asked LI Of) for the right to take the road through the land. [Left sitting.]