APPEAL COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 October 1930, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

DOUBTS ABOUT BOUNDARIES.

.(By.; Telegraph—Per -Press Association.) * ,-i t’. v

WELLINGTON, October 6. •t |AS the '..Ap'peal Court in the case 'fClhdstOhuS’Oh.-j-City Council v.. the Attronby 1 General, in opening the case for the respondent, Mr Gresson submitted the western portion of the Square was, with the exception of four years up to 1877, used as a public square or .recreation ground. The -real ./of determination of , the Court what was the meaning o>f the description.; of the Godley . Block contained tfr|||ie Christchurch City Reserves Act, 187 He contended that the whole Square west of the curved portion of Colombo Street-was the Godley Block. To ascertain what was in fact, one western boundary of Colombo Street, it waspecessary to go back beyond the Cathedral Square ordinance of 1872, which directed a diversion of Colombo Street through the Square. Mr Gres- • sow was-dealing With the ordinance of 1872 when the Court adjourned.

APPEAL CONTINUES

Mil 7. The Appeal Court to-day continued ,tl|e hearing of the case of the Christchurch City Council v. Attorney General.,. Mr Gresson said three contentions Jjiy! ;apselln'ifits, which were no#'misell iff tfmmdmitmelow :• —- (1) It was said that under the - Cprporqt.ions , Apt, 1867- the “street” included ; a square, therefore from then Cathedral- -'Square had -been a street, but in answer to that he submitted that the land in dispute had never been called a square, Cathedral Square being in truth a reserve and had never been a street within the meaning of the Act.

j-r.(2)--.-He .contended the appellant’s* western boundary of the Cathedral site had not been fixed till 1898 and, therefore', the description in the OrdinPtole bf t 1872 was maiftiogless. Mr Gressoft held that this point was not open to appellants because no evidence was ZpdkiU ll the court below, and the evidence of respondent’s surveyor, there produced uncontradicted plans before ; u y- .described the vase constituted By jthe A<it (accuracy pf; those jtpifensi hd,m,ittedthy bofbli; parties. ' • (31 It was said no proof had been brought that the Superintendent of the Province ever closed the street runnpres'effki- prirtioft'of the ■ SqWarW- fn tllSphte, - b’lit the' Vespfcndent *s4ibnetted- 1 -ho -fa'r""as< the -Counc! 1-- -wasconcerned it was Til;'fact-'closed'be-fore the road, as defined in the 1872 Ordinance, could be laid out. That -portion in dispute had to be given up and dosed- and the Corporation in its capacity as trustee under the 1877 Act its duty ijn getting ? illi / ' 0 JtheiL closing the street.

DECISION RESERVED. WELLINGTON, Oct. 7. , .In Citv' Council ’versus the Attorney-Gen-eral regarding Cathedral Square,, Mr Wauklyji, ..speakLug-in .support..of -Mr. yuit, even i£ tion was a street, the Christchurch Corporation nevertheless had no power to erect the proposed buildings; .firstly, Because lio statutory authority tstrfkdrhs,! ahd, secondly, because fthefe ;tkuld never be' power to erect %]yek ‘if -they, in fact, would create a -public''nuisance,' and he submittedthat that would be their effect. After Mr O’Shea had briefly replied ±O, .thq contentions for the respondent, the '/(3ourt adjourned, reserving its decisiori.- ** ' " Vi : '''