Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1447, 6 May 1905, Page 4

quickly enough to supply tbo demand. The Department had used part of the land {or taking gravel,, He considered that 6d royalty por yard reasonable. The Government had offered to ro-convey tbo area to •witness, but ho had deolined to accept it. The Government tock the land compulsory, foneed it off, and took away all aooess to it. Ho did not remember how long shingle had been taken from the river at Kaitaratahi. Ho bought the property, 121 acres,with publichouse,blacksmith shop and othor buildings from Mr Nolan for £2OOO. He loosed the hotel at £3 a weok, and got about £BOO for the goodwill. He was asking £4BOO from the Government now. Dr Findlay produced tbe grant, whioh gave on area of 103 acres, exolusivo of the river bed. R. D. B. RobinsoD, town clerk, said the Borough Oouncil from time to time purchased shingle from the Railway Department. They could take more than wob supplied. It was used for tbe roods in the Borough. They paid 8s Id per cubic yard for it at the station. Tbe Oounoil had taken over 3000 yards during the last fow years, and were prepared to tako more. The best source for gravel as far as he knew was at Kaitatatabi. By Dr Findlay : Last year they had taken 2000 yards of metal from Patutahi. All the shingle used for tho abattoirs was river shingle. Tho Oouncil objected to some shinglo on account of the silt amongst it.

DeG. Fraser, County Engineer, said there was a depth of 10ft in each of the four pits. Tbe general run of tho metal was of the usual character. They had never paid any royalty for river shingle. The shingle bed of Mr Joyce was close to the railway station. By Dr Findlay: They took the shingle from below the river bridge. Lately they had received notice that they were tresp seeing from the owner of the adjoining land, Mr Joyce. There was loss silt where they bad been in the habit of taking the shingle from than on Mr Joyce’s land. He would not have bought the land as a privnte person. This olosed plaintiff's case. Dr Findlay said that Mr Rees admitted that tbe land was of no value, except for a gravol pit, and they were not concerned with its value in any other way. It was worth nothing before the railway was built, and was worth nothing now. The Government did not want the land for nothing, and were prepared to pay something for it. His Honor said the only question, it appeared to him, was what was the valne of tbe land before the Government took it ? As the Government were prepared to pay something, he would adjourn the Court to allow counsel to confer, and they would probably be able to settle the matter.

a,. On resuming, Dr Eindlay stated that the L parties had eomo to an agreement. They i asked His Honor to fix the compensation : payable to Hr Joyce at £125, the parties s each to pay their own costs and assessors. The Government paid this amount on the basis of the area being aoros. His Honor gave judgment accordingly, fixing tho fee payable to each assessor at £lO 10s. JUDGMENTS. id TATTLEY v. COOPER. ———— In the course of his judgment in the above oase yesterday morning His Honor said the evidence did not disclose any subi. stantial breach, of tho covenant to repair i. the fences, but it did disclose a substantial 1. breach of tho covenant to repair the dwolid ing house. Defendant had covenanted to keep the house in repair, and the parties had stipulated that upon breaoh rdf-any of .r these covenants in the lease the plaintiff 1 could re-enter, Thero was no breach in' i connection - with defendant mortgaging the property. Regarding the insurance polioy His Honor held - that; plaintiff-by leaving too . house untenantod hadocominitted a breach. , Theinext, and- only substantial, breach alleged was that defendant had not: within the first three years of the term sown tho land in good English grasses,and had not endeavoured to keep in in the some. It had been conclusively proved, and was not now.disputed by plaintiff that the land was in English grasses and in -. good condition as understood by farmers with reference to land of this class. The covenant was not to sow with first-class seed, but to sow with good English grasses. Thus two of the breaches hod been established by plaintiff, and the rest of the breaches had been negatived. Defendant ■, had relied only upon bis motion for relief in case any breach should be established BgaiDrt him. The plaintiff’s counsel bad , agreed to this procedure, but tho defend- •' aat by this courso had rendered a tii 1 necessa y, and he must therefore pay the 1 general costs of the action as on a sum of -* £6OO. The costs of witnesses on both P sides called only with reference to the issue as to whether the land was or was not properly grassed must bo borne by plaintiff, and suoh part of such costs as ® had been incurred by the defendant must bo deducted from tho oos,s payable by the 111 defendant to' the plaintiff. His Honor allowed plaintiff’s second counsel £3 8s and £5 Os to plaintiff for the coat of tho motion for relief from forfeiture. With these directions tho costs must be ascer- IT tained and taxed by tho Registrar. When . the defendant had fulfilled the terms of the judgment his Honor would direct a record of relief from the forfeiture claimed by plaintiff to be made upon the lease pursuant to the 26th section of the m Supreme Court Act, 1882, and tho action ai to be stayed. a l BANGINUI V. NOLAN.

In the course of his judgment in the above ease, His Honor said it was a suit

to sot aside a’memorandum of transfer of land undor the provisions of the Land Transfer Act, 1885, executed by plaintiff, ;Te Ira Kanginui, wife of lopa te Hau, to defendant, Ellen Julia Nolan. His Honor said that tho only evidence adduced by plaintiff was her own, and ho was satisfied upon that evidence that the plaintiff fully understood what she was doing, and that jshe received a cheque, subsequently duly ;paid, for the purchase money, which she handed to her husband lopa, who held a mortgage over .the land. The plaintiff 'admitted in cross-examination that the i-ction was brought at the instigation of her husband, and the action had the appearance of an attempt upoD the part of tho husband and the wife to obtain payment of the purchase money twice over. Judge Jones’ evidence showed conclusively not only that plaintiff fully understood what she was doing, but that the allegation that he was deceived in granting the order was utterly without foundation. Whether the proceeding of the Native Land Court was regular or irregular was a inattor into which His Honor coaid not enquire. Tbo matter was one with respect to which tho Native Land Court had exclusive jurisdiction. So long as that Court acted within its jurisdiction and its orders were not procured by fraud, the Supreme Court had no power to investigate itß. proceedings.'. Judgment must therefore be for defendant, with costs according to scale as on » sum of £llOO.