COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 372, 22 March 1902, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

WAINGABOMIA CASE. By Telegraph—Press Association. Wellington, last night. A case from Gisborne, Mere Boihi and others v. the Assets Company, Limited, was called on in the Court of Appeal this morning, beforo the Chief Justice and Judges Williams, Denniston, and Edwards. Mr Bees is appearing for the appellants, and Messrs DeLautour and Myers for respondent. Counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the appeal proceeding on the ground that the notices required by the Court of Appeal rules had not been properly given. The Court was of opinion that there had beon a slight technical irregularity, but called upon counsel for the respondent to show cause why the appeal should not be allowed to proceed notwithstanding, under special leave to bo granted by the Court. Later.—ln the case Mere Boihi and others v. the Assets Company, the Court of Appeal, in dealing with the preliminary objection, held that there had been very Blight technical irregularity (if any) in regard to the notice of motion, and that point being a new one, and the respondent company not having been in any way prejudiced the appeal ought to be allowed to proceed. Argument on the appeal was then proceeded with. The appeal is one from an order made by Mr Justice Couolly, dismissing the action on the ground that the present plaintiffs could have been added as plaintiffs in other actions brought by other plaintiffs having a common interest with them, and on the further grounds that the action is frivolous and vexatious, it appearing on the face of the statement of claim that it cannot possibly succeed. The action relates . to the title to a block of land in Gisborne ; district, Waingaromia No. 3. The respon- ( dent company is at present the regis- , tered proprietor under the Land Transfer ; Act, but tho plaintiffs alleged that it obtained its title by production and registration of documents purporting to be orders of the Native Land Court, but which were in fact nullified, having been made jurisdiction, and not at any sitting! of the Court. Tho plaintiffs therefore the respondent company should be declared trustee for them. Argument on the 1 appeal bad not concluded when the Court rose. The case will be resumed on Monday.