SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2140, 16 March 1908, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

HALF-YEARLY SITTING. The half-yearly sittings of tlio Su■v'imh ' Court were concluded before .'(is Honor, Mr Justice Chapman on ■-A turd.ay. ALLEGED TRESPASS. THE CASE ADJOURNED. To Raima Hapo (Mr Rees) sued Wateno Futa and It ini Rota (Mr Stock) for £2O, boing tlio value of 2(3 pigs dislroyed by defendants unit applied for an injunction to restrain defendants from killing more. Mr Stock raised tlio question of tlio jurisdiction of tlio- Court. Tlio caso was practically ono of trespass, and ho held was ono for tlio Native Land Court, as there was a question of the title of the ownership of tlio land on which the trespass was alleged to have taken place. The Native. Lands Court alone could deal with that phase of the dispute, and Mr Stock cited a decision of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in support of their contention.

Mr Rees denied that there was any question of ownership of tho land, the dispute was whether the defendants had a right to kill pigs. His Honor asked if it would not have been bettor to have taken action in the Magistrate’s Court. Mr. Rees said that plaint!lf craved an injunction. He submitted that thore was no question of the titlo to tho land, and plaintiffs occupied tho land with tho consent of the Native Land Court. His Honor said ho could see no serious objection to the jurisdiction of tho Court- Ho could not deeido the right of title to the land if that point was raised and decided to hear the case. Mr Rees said that formerly the land was occupied by a Mr Brown. When Mr. Brown left, defendants removed- a portion of the fence. Tho plaintiff, who took occupancy of tho land after Mr Brown, had a number of pigs running about and defendant also had pigs running on the land. Plaintiff was told one day that defendant had killed live of his pigs. From time to time other nigs were destroyed by ono or other of defendants. Some of tho animals were killed on tho public road. Plaintiff spoko to defendants about tho destruction of the nigs, and Wateno liulca said the land* belonged to him and ho would destroy any pigs ho found thore. Plaintiff now asked for tho value of tho pigs and an injunction against further destructions. Mr Stock raised an objection to tho form of pleading, as the title to tho land was not defined. Mr Rees asked for leave to amend the form of pleading. His Honor said that if there was a fault in tho pleading, plaintiff would be entitled to time to amend and could claim the indulgence of tho Court for an adjournment. Mr Stock raised no objection to this course. Mr Roes asked for an adjournment to amend the form of pleading, which was granted; plaintiff to pay £3 3s costs'in addition to the costs of witnesses : to be fixed by tho registrar. JUDGMENT. His Honor delivered judgment in tho caso of Hannah O’Sullivan in which petitioner, who is the wife of Patrick O'Sullivan, asked for tho custody of six of the infant children. His Honor said lie had carefully considered tlio evidence; but would not discuss it; tho application would be refused. ‘ ADJOURNED CASE. On the application of Mr Rees tho ease of Sarah Ruth Cooper v. John Coleman, being- an application.for the transfer of a portion of a block of" land from defendant to plaintiff was allowed to stand over.' IN CHAMBERS. In tho case of Daniel Courtney v. William Henry Jones and another, being an ex-pitr to application for a writ of prohibition to'restrict defendants from proceeding on a eouviction obtained in tlio Magistrate’s Court at Gisborno for rescuing cattle. a rule nisi was granted. Mr Finn appeared in support of tlio motion and the application was not opposed. Mr Nolan made application, by summons, under tho Land Trans! or Act 1885, to show cause why a certificate of titlo for accretions i ■ tic Puhatikotiko 1A block should not Lo issued in the name of Frederick Bell. The application was refused.