COURT OF APPEAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1800, 5 July 1906, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

LYSNAR V. DUNLOP.

(Par Press Asßoclation.) Wellington, yesterday. In the Appeal Couit Mr Hoskiog continued his argument for appellant in the case Lysnar v. Dunlop and another. He quoted legal authority to show that as reepondoDt in his sworn statement of bankruptcy bad not Btated that ho was the owner of the properly in dispute, be was now Btopped from claiming ownership. Ho then contended that as no fraud could be shown on appellani’s psrt when he took the transfers of property in 1898, then there could have been no fraud until five years after, when respondents first claimed that the transaction was in the nature of a mortgage, and at that distance of time there might well have been an honest difference of opinion as to the nature of the transaction. Argument is prooseding slowly. It is probable that the oase will last until at loast to morrow evening.

Wellington, last nighl

The oase Lysnar v. Dunlop and another was continued all to-day in the Court of Appeal. Mr Hoeking concluded his argument for appellants at a quarter to three this aftornoon, and Dr. Findlay followed, confining his argument to the grounds that on account of the long delay in bringing the proceedings against appellant, viz., Eeven years, respondents had lost their remedy, and to the faot that appellant, Mr Lysnar, had given fair value for the property. The Court adjourned at 4.20 until 10 80 to-morrow morning, Dr. Findlay not having then oonoluded his argument.