SUPREME COURT

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2431, 20 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

Thubsday, Januaby 19. [Before Hia Honor Mr Justice J ohneton.] The following is the continuation of the oaieß in Banco, heard after our going to press yesterday:— WILMS V VINCENT AND CO. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Mr Harper for Flanagan, one of the defendants ; Mr Button for the remainder of the defendants. This was a special case, stated by consent of the parties, raising a point of law reserved at the trial of the case at nisi prius before his Honor. The action was to recover possession of a certain hotel at Malvern, and also £250 as mesne profits. By some mistake an error occurred in the declaration of the description of property, the amount of land demised being incorrectly stated. The plaintiff desired to lead evidence to show that this error had occurred, and how it occurred, but the defendant took the objection that parol evidence of an error in a deed oould not be given at nisi prius. This was the point reserved for decision by his Honor in banco. Mr Harper followed, contending that parol evidence of a deed could not be reoeived at nisi prius, and quoted a number of authorities in support of his contention. He submitted that the plaintiff had plenty of opportunity to correct the error in the description of the land prior to the action for ejectment. 'Authorities cited In support —Strand onon v Piper, 6 Berry, N. 0., 421 ; Hitohen v Groom, 5 0.8., 515; Hutohins v Boott, 2 M. and W., 816 ; Manning v Fitzgerald, 29 L.J., Ex. 24; DruffvLord Parker, 5 1i.8., Ex. 131; Williams v Meyen, 15 Q. 8., 782.1 Mr Button addressed the Court on the case. The real point at issue was whether the plaintiff had a right on the reoord to give evidence of the error in the declaration to prove that the hotel, tec, was situate on the land where it really was. He submitted that the question was one of pure mistake, and not of latent ambiguity, and therefore was not ourable by parol evidence. [Oases cited in support—Hitohen v Groom, 0.8. B« ports, 515 ; Baird v Fortune, 7 Jurist N. 8., 926.] Mr Joynt replied, contending that the error amounted to an ambiguity, and therefore it was permitted for him to produce parol evidence to oure it. His Honor reserved judgment. LAND TBANSEEB ACT T B. BDB. Mr G. Harper applied herein for an adjournment. This was a rule nisi, which had been obtained prior to the Christmas vacation, calling upon certain persons to show cause why a caveat should not be removed. Mr Joynt, for the other side, consented, and after some argument, agreed to the postponement to January 24 th. BOTES V OXABK. Mr Harper applied herein for a decree in terms of the prayer of the declaration, ordering the payment of the sum of £2OO with interest. His Honor granted the decree as prayed for. BE MAESHAIX. In this oase, which was an application by Mr George Harper for probate to John Marshall, it was deoided to allow it to stand oyer till January 24th, in banco. The Court then rose.