SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2518, 4 May 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. rßafore his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] Wednesday, May 3. THE LAND ACT, 1877. In the mutter of the Land Act, 1877, and an appeal of John Cathoart Wason from a decision of the Canterbury Land Board. Tor argument of case on appeal. Mr Harper for the appellant, and Mr J. O. Martin for the respondents. The following is a continuation of our report: — His Honor said—l have considerable difficulty in deciding, owing to the construction oi the statute ; but on the whole its meaning appears to mo to be th e—That, reading sections 3,4, 5, and 7 together, a person may plant any land with trees. Whatever the extent of the land ho so plants, he cannot become entitled to a Crown grant for more than 230 acres in respect of all the land he has previously planted. But if after ho becomes entitled to the Crown grant he subsequently plants other land, I see no reason why, in respect to the land so subsequently planted, ha should not he entitled to an additional Crown grant. Section 7 is inartifieially expressed, but I think my construction of the Act attributes to it the propel' meaning—that is to say, that when a man has once planted a quantity of land bo cannot, in respoot of that land, however great its area may be, get more than 230 acres under Crown grant. But, ao I have already said, after ho becomes entitled to the Crown grant in respect of the land ho has previously planted, I see no reason why he should not plant again and come for an additional Crown grant in respect of the land ho plants subsequently. Ifaat is the answer to the question. Of course the Land Board can apply this decision to the particular case. The facts are not sufficiently stated for mo to say whether Mr Wason is actually entitled to the additional Crown grant • the Board will be able to decide that. Mr 'Harper said—lf his Honor’s opinion f was communicated to the Land Board it 1 would be sufficient for their guidance.

PBIKDLAHDEH BUGS. (APPELLANTS) V ROBERTS (RESPONDENT). For argument of special case. Mr Harper for appellant and Mr Garrick lor respondent. On the application of Mr Harper this matter was allowed to stand over until next Banco day. ANDBBSON V TIMAHU HABBOB BOAED. This was an argument on demurrer. Mr G. Harper appeared for defendant in support of the demurrer, and Mr Garrick for the plaintiff in oupport of the replication. The action wag brought by Messrs Anderson and Son, iron founders, against the Timaru Harbor Board, to recover the sum of £787 10s, balance alleged to be due on a contract for the supply of a otoam crane. The price of the crane was £3150. The defendants pleaded that they were not indebted—that there was a depreciation in the value of the crane to the extent of £SOO for the following reasons— That the machine was not made to the satisfaction of the engineer, that it would not travel round a certain r qnired curve nor stand a specified test of 60 tons. Also that they had sustained a loss of £460 through the non-dolivery of the crane within the time agreed. The principal ground of the demurrer was that the replication was a departure from the first count in the declaration. His Honor having heard learned counsel, allowed the demurrer and gave leave to amend the declaration. BE COMPENSATION CLAIM OF K. -WILKIN. In this case, which was before the Gourton the previous day, his Honor intimated that ho would reserve his decision until after the silting of the Court of Appeal, when he would forward a written judgment to the Registrar. The Court then adjourned.