SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2991, 19 September 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Tins Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman,) EEC IN A V. HENRY AND OTHERS. Argument of rule aid to quash conviction. Mr Macassey moved the rule absolute, and Mr B. C, Haggitt, with whom was Mr Chapter, showed cause. In April last, J. T Henry, coach proprietor, was fined LlO aqd posts by Mr Beetham, E.M., Queenstown, tor ringing the fire-bell there contrary to a (municipal bye law, 'Die rule was made absolute, by consent, without costs. JRF.OINA V. FISH AND ANOTHER. Argument of rule am ta quash conviction. Mr Macassey in support; Mr Smith showed pause The rule called upon the Mayor of Dunedipj the cpnvicting magistrate, and Inspector Nimon, the jnfornpint, to show cause why the c nviction of It. B. Mart]!} for an alleged breach of the Kerosene and Baralinc Oils Ordinance. 1862, should not be quashed, on the grounds that sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Ordinance are vitro, vlrcn ; that the warehouse and yard mentioned in the conviction separate places vvituin the meaning of the Ordinance , the conviction did not allege as it should that thp pffopce was committed knowingly ; that tips ()v ’dnanpe was impliedly repealed by the Dangerous Goods Act, 186!). His Honor said the conviction was laid on the first and second grounds. The rule was made absolute, by consent, costs not being allowed against the Magistrate, and on the understanding that no action should be brought against either the Mayor or the informant, RED IN A V. RI'CEAIU. This was an argument on demurrer to an action by writ of wire facias to repeal a Grown grant. Mr Barton and Mr Shaptcr in support ; Mr Macassey, instructed Turtou, contra. On June 27, 1851 Mr I. S. Pillans, by virtue of Ordinance, scss. 10, New Ulster, and scss. 10, No. 2, New Munster, and the regulations then in foioe, by which the Governor issued depasturing i licenses outside hundreds, became entitled to a license for ]]i;,U 35, Molyneux. That license was for a term of 14 years fropi its date, and could be cancelled “ as by law and as by such regulations prescribed. 1 illans enjoyed possession under the license until February 27, 1867, when ho elected, under section 60 of the Otago Waste Lands Act, 1866, to surrender his license, and receive in lieu of it a lease for the unexpired term, with ten years added. (A question turns upon the sufficiency of the description of the country as against the Crown. ) During the continuance of the demise a portion of the run was proclaimed as fhe Stuart Hundred, the proclamation being ma'fo by tjje Governor under the Definition of Districts Act, 1858. Since that proclamation which was dated November (>, 1870, the Waste Lands Board have had the land surveyed and divided into districts, blocks, and sections, ap.d thrown open for sale under the Waste Land Act upon the supposed extinction or limitation of Mr Pillans's rights, The date of the proclamation was merely set out in the writ; the date of the sale and division was not given; and one of the questions the Court is asked to consider is, whether the sale having taken place so far back, the parties who had been, lying on their Oars from 1868 to 1872 conhl now object to it or to anything happening from it. Sections 14 and 15, block 11, W aitahumi, 216 acres (part of the run) were purchased in September, 1870, by Mr Sinclair; and the validity of that sale is called into question. The demurrer avers that there is no sngge tiou or good reason for the cancellation of the grant, and that the writ and declaration are uncertain in form and insufficient, Ihe Court is asked to decide in the first place wheth r the proclamation of Nov. 6, 1868, is void, because it does net name a date for the cessation of the pastoral lease ; and, further, assuming tho proclamation to be valid for (ho purpose of declaring the Hundred, whether in consequence of there being xio date named for the cessation of this specific

lease, the pastoral tenant is still entitled to his lease. The opposing party to the demurrer admits the sufficiency of the proclamation so far as it defines districts, but contends it. is not valid with section 82 of the Waste Lands Act, because it did not put an cud to the interest of the pastoral tenant in the manner prescribed by that Act. The party demurring, on the other hand, says, the effect of that contention if upheld by the Court, would be that the tenant’s lease which the Legislature intended should be dcfeasablc, is converted into an utterly iudefcasable one, until the termination of the lease, because a good proclamation being in force no other could be issued, which would be, it is alleged, tearing up the Waste Lands Act by the roots. (Left sitting.)