SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2657, 12 October 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

NISI Pill US SITTINGS.

Thursday, Ooiobeb 12.

[Before His Hosor Mr Justice Johnston, and a Special Jury.] The sitting of the Court was resumed at 11 a.m. II‘I,AtrGHIiAH T HBIiIiEB. In this case the plaintiff claimed to recover £SOO, as damages for alleged illegal entry upon part of rural section 321, block 21, at Kaiapoi. The defendant denied all the material allegations. Mr GK-esion for the plaintiff; Mr Martin, with him Mr Million, for the defendant. The plaintiff’s case was that the defendant occupied the adjoining section (block 22) to his. Between the two sections there was an old boundary fence, which it was now alleged had been removed by the defendant, the latter claiming to have twenty-five links frontage instead of five, thus taking twenty links on plaintiff’s ground. The plaintiff remonstrated with the defendant, but he would not desist, and the new fence was erected. As the land had a frontage on the railway, it was valuable. The issues submitted were as follows : 1. Did the defendant break and enter the parcel of land in the declaration described and delineated on the plan annexed thereto ?

2. Was the parcel of land at the time of such entry the property of plaintiff P 3. Was the plaintiff at the time of such entry in lawful possession of the said parcel of land ?

4, Was the defendant at the time of such entry in lawful possession of the said parcel of land P

5. What amount of damages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover f The evidence adduced on both sides referred entirely to the dispute between the parties as to the boundary of their respective sections, and was of no public interest. At the close of the case for the plaintiff,

His Honor suggested that the counsel on both sides might consider the question of settlement.

The counsel retired for the purpose, but on returning into Court Mr Uresson announced that they were unable to agree. The defendant would neither buy or sell. His Honor said that after the experience people had had of the costs of litigation it was a pity they could not arrange to have the matter settled by arbitration. Mr Gresion said be was quite willing that the prioo of the strip in dispute should be Battled by arbitration. After some delay, Mr Martin announced that there was no possibility of an agreement. The case for the defence was then proceeded with.

[Left sitting ]