WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XIII, Issue 1638, 4 November 1873, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, October 31. Alexander White v. J. D. Pinkerton.— A complaint that the defendant did, on or about 15th September, 1873, and at other times, interfere with the business site of the complainant at Ahaura by asserting a right thereto, and had prevented the complainant from purchasing the fee simple thereof. The plaintiff claimed that his title to the site be investigated, and that the Court would decree who was the rightful owner thereof. A panel of eight assessors was summoned from which to select a jury of four to try the case. Four were challenged and set aside, and one was fined L 2 for nonattendance. A bystander was selected by the Warden to make up the number, and the following were then sworn as assessors: —Malcolm Graham, Noble's Creek; C. E. Nelson, Murray Creek, Inangahua ; Thos. Williams.Half-Ounce; and Frederick ;f7ilckins, Half-Ounce. The ground in ' dispute is the half of a strip about 12ft wide between the premises of the litigants, and the history of the dispute as it came out in evidence was as follows :— ln the beginning of 1869 the new town of Ahaura was surveyed and thrown open for occupation. Most of the residents in the old township, at the junction of the Grey and Ahaura Rivers, took up sections in the new township and commenced to build. Among the rest were the defendant and a storekeeper named Morris who occupied adjoining lots. As a matter of convenience Morris allowed Pinkerton to encroach when # building his hotel some 6ft upon his ' (Morris's) section, and a space was left between the buildings of either party, which both used as a right-of-way. The defendant lent Morris a quantity of building material, the value of which was variously estimated at from L 7 10s to Ll4, and when the defendant wanted to use these materials himself, it was not convenient for Morris to return them, and the defendant allowed him to retain the wood and iron on condition that he (the defendant) was to be allowed theuse and occupation of the land on which his building encroached, and of the right-of-way, as he alleged. The following is a copy of an agreement then made, and on which the defendant based his title :—" Ahaura, April 27, 1869. I hereby agree to give J. D. Pinkerton the use of right-of-way six feet (6) between his hotel and my atore in Camp street, Ahaura (new township), in consideration of which I am to retain the iron/&c, used in the temporary store erected by me. Signed—William Morris. J. D. Pinkerton." In August, 1870, Morris discontinued business at Ahaura, and Thompson, Smith, and Barkley became the assignees of his estate. They sold the property to White and Garth, and the decision in the case turned upon what took place at an interview before the purchase was concluded between Messrs White, Pinkerton, Thompson, and Morris. The complainants alleged that it was then distinctly understood that Pinkerton was to retain the 6ft of ground on which had been built a part of his house, but that he was to have thifc privilege of using the right-of-way, boftup on sufferance, and only until such time as White and Garth wanted it for other purposes. White and Garth made the title to the whole of the right-of-way a condition of the purchase from Thompson and Co., and unless this title was settled he, it was alleged, refused to conclude the bargain. Thompson said the object of the interview was to have, this point decided. Pinkerton and White had some conversation, after which the latter seemed to be satisfied, for he then bought the property. Morris said the 6f fc of ground mentioned in the sale-note were the 6ft on which the defendant's building partly stood, and that he (Morris) never intended to give the defendant a title to any poition of the right-of-way except a right to use it. The complainant's firm purchased his (Morris's) right to the land along* with the rest of the property. This witness further said that the sale-note was loosely drawn up, as the land was then of very little value. It was shown that since the purchase of the property by them White and Garth had continuously taken out a business license for the whole of the section, a part of which was in dispute. For the defence it was alleged that the right to the land was purchased absolutely, and that the price given, Ll4, or the value in building material, was more, according to the value of the land at that time, than the whole section was worth. It was, it was alleged, arranged that Morris was to maintain the business license for the section, which it was contended he was compelled to do to protect his right to the other portion of it on which his store was built. The right-of-way was left open as much for the advantage of the complainant as it was for the defendant, and it should in equity be kept open as a mutual benefit, and for the public convenience. Counsel on either side addressed the assessors, and the Warden summed up, carefully reviewing the evidence, and pointing out those portions having the greatest bearing on the case. After deliberation for threequarters of an hour, the assessors returned a verdict for the complainant, with costs as taxed by the Warden. The Warden concurred in the finding of the jury. Notice of appeal was given on behalf of the defendant.