A REFUSAL TO QUIT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2071, 4 May 1907, Page 1

A REFUSAL TO QUIT.

INTERESTING BLENHEIAI CASE. At the Supreme Court at Wellington on April 25th Air. Justice Cooper had before him a special case stated for the opinion of the Court under the Crown Suits Act, 1881. The parties were His Majesty the King v. the Blenheim Borough Council. Air. Alyers appeared for the Crown, and Alessrs Skerrett and Chapman for the defendant corporation.

The statement of claim set out that prior to No’vember, 1876, the defendants were using portion of the Blenheim Government buildings. On November 1, 1876, the Abolition ol Provinces Act, 1875, came into force and oil that date the buildings named were destroyed by fire. The present buildings were then erected on the land under the orders of the General Government, and on completion thereof, in 1878, the Borough Council y 4 ’as permitted to use and occupy rooms in them without rent, and since that time has always occupied

two rooms in the building. The Government, subsequently requiring the whole of the buildings, notice was given to the Borough Council to quit, hut the corporation refused to give up possession. Defendants alleged that they had continuously occupied part of. the buildings in questim, and that their occupation had been pursuant to the trusts declared in the deed of November, 1857. The questions put lor the Court to decide wore: —(1) Has His Majesty the King such a title to the land as will entitle him to recover possession of it, or of the rooms referred to l ' (2) Is His Majesty the trustee of tie deed of November 18, 1857, and, if not, is there any trustee, and, if so, who? (3) Is the use of part of the said building by the defendant corporation for municipal or local government purposes a “purpose of public utility” within the meaning of the deed and of the statutes controlling same? (4) Js the defendant corporation entitled to eontiniio to use same under tile trust’s of the deed, or otherwise ; or is the corporation entitled to continue the use of same under the trusts of the deed, until its. right so to do is determined by the trustee, for the time being, of the deed?

For the Crown it was contended that the land in question is vested in His Majesty as a public reserve within clause 2 of the Public Reserves Act of 1881, or, in the further alternative became vested in Her Majesty, the late Queen Victoria, under the provisions of the Abolition of Provinces Act, 1875, and it is now vested in His Majesty the King as a public reserve; also, that the purposes for which the said two rooms arc being used by the defendant corporation are not “purposes of public utility,” and that defendants are in possession of them without right or title.

Tlio case for defendants was that the land in question is not vested in His Majesty; that- the conveyance of November, 1857, created a trust, and that there was nothing before the Court to show who the trustee is; that the occupation of part of the said building by defendant corporation is a purpose of public utility within the meaning of the deed, and that such purpose of public utility has been finally chosen by the trustee of the deed. liis- Honor Reserved judgment.