SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2152, 18 January 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. SITTINGS AT NISI FRIUS. Tubsdat, January 18. [Before hie Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor took his seat at 10 a.m. ALLAN V BTANBUEY. In this case A. D. M. Allan was plaintiff and J. F. Stanbury defendant. The declaration of the plaintiff was to the effect that the defendant had entered upon a section of land at Little River, and burnt and destroyed certain fences. The plaintiff claimed the land as his freehold, which was denied by the defendant, who hold a section on the opposite side of the road to the plaintiff. The present action was brought to recover £SOO as damages on account of an alleged trespass committed by the defendant. The defendant denied all the material allegations, and pleaded a denial of the ownership by plaintiff, alleging that the land was the property of the defendant. Mr George Harper, with him Mr Reeves, appeared for the pla ; miff. Mr Joynt, with him Mr James Struther Williams, for the defendant. The main question in dispute was the boundaries between the respective sections of tha plaintiff and defendant, and a great deal of evidence was led on both side*. The plaintiff’s ease having closed, Mr Joynt called evidence for the defendant. After some argument. His Honor suggested that the learned counsel should endeavor to make some arrangement. There was no question of principle involved ; it was merely a question of boundaries, which might be settled by arrangement rather than have harassing exhaustive and expensive litigation. From his twenty years experience in the colony ho found that the titles of a large amount of land in New Zealand were totally non-existent. Ho thought that the matter should be settled by a little mutual concession.

Mr Harper said that the land in dispute was not worth £lO.

Mr Joynt said that when the case first came under his notice ho had urged a settlement.

Mr Harper said that the terms of the settlement was the restoration of the land and the fences, and the payment of expenses of plaintiff.

Mr Joynt suggested that Mr Mclntyre and Mr Hay, the Government surveyor, should meet and settle the matter.

Mr Harper agreed to this being done. Hie Honor said that he thought that legislation would be required at no distant date providing for cases of this kind being settled by a tribunal of arbitration.

The case was then withdrawn from the jury by consent, on the following terms : That the question of money be referred to Messrs Hay and Mclntyre, with power to appoint an umpire if necessary to decide whether the portions of the fence destroyed are within the Crown grant in plaintiff's possession. If the parts of the fence destroyed bo found to be partially or wholly upon the road described as between the sections, the plaintiff not to pay costs, but his costs to be paid. On the application of Mr Harper the jury were discharged. The Court then adjourned till 10 a,m, on Wednesday.