The Courts.

Manawatu Herald, 16 February 1893, Page 2

The Courts.

SUPREME COUHT.— CIVIL SITTINGS.

Monday, February 18. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) ' ; : Wi Tauhana Rupuha, of Otaki (on behalf of himself and ..others)- -v. W. L. Buller (solicitor) and G. B". Davy (District Land Registrar,,Wellington). Action to recover- ■" possession of certain land in the Manawatu District. "'"'<;

The plaintiff by his statenietii of claim alleged : (1 ) That about September, 1884, he and other Natives owned section 8/ManawfttuKukutauaki, No. 7d, containing 8100 acres ; (2) that he claimed to sue on behalf of himse f and the others as legistered proprietors; (8)- that September, 1885, defendant Buller produced to defendant Davy a memo of transfer bearing date 25 th September, 1884, purporting to be a conveyance from a plaintiff and his co- owners of their interest in the " above block to Archibald Paisley Stuart and John Davies ; (4) that Davy registered it as a valid transfer and issued two certificates of title to Stuart and Davies ; (5) that at the same time defendant (Sir W. Buller) produced to G. B. Davy a memo, of transfer flaked 24th August, 1885, purporting' to be a ~- transfer to him by Stuart and Davies of 1068 acres of the above land for the price of 10s; (6) that he also produced at the same time a memo, of transfer from Stuart and Davies to himself of a right-of-way fo> the price of 10a ; (7) that G. B, Davy registered both these memoranda of transfers as valid transfers ; (8) that .' plaintiff and his co-owners employed Sir W." L. Buller to act as their solicitor on the occasion of the negotiations connected with theij^ execution of the memo, of transfer of the 25th September, 1885; and paid him various sums of money for his professional. services in the matter(9) that by reason of the great con' fidence reposed; by plaintiff and his co-owners in defendant (sir w. L Buller) as their solicitor, the said defendant ' fraudulently induced them to execute and said memo, of transfer of the 26th September, 1884

to the extent that it purport ed to sell aud transfer to tho said A.. P. Stuart and Ji Daviefl.the land Which was the subject of the memoranda of transfer of the 24th August, 1835, repreppnh'ng tH&bfc he was acting for A; P; StviHrt and J. Davies, whereas in faefcj lie' liiiiis elf wris the real purchaser and Stiurt and Davies only nominal purchasers; (10) that by reason of the/ fiduciary relation of clients and solicitor existing between plaintiff an/ his co-owners and defendant 7Sir W. L. Buller) the memo, of transfer of the 25th September, 1884, was fraudulent and void in so far as it purported to sell or transfer to Stuart and Davies the land which was the subject of the memoranda of transfer, dated 24th August, 1885. Plaintiff, therefore, for himself and co-owners prayed— (l) For an order for caucellation of certificate of title ; (2) tor an order directing G. B. Davy to issue a fresh certificate of title in the names of plaintiff and the Natives joined with him in place of the cancelled certificate ; (3) for the coats of the action ; and (4) for such other relief as the Court might see fit. As an alternative plaintiff and those associated with him prayed — (1) That Sir W. L. Buller be declared a trustee of the lands men • tioned in the certificate of title on behalf of plaintiff and his co-owners ; (2) that an account be taken of all mesne profits since 23th September, 1884, with interest thereon at 8 per cent ; (3) that defendant, Sir W. L. Buller, be ordered to pay the amount found due less the amount paid by him for the land to thfc plaintiff and the other Natives ; also the costs of the action and such other relief as the Court might think fit.

The defendant, Sir W. L. Bailer, for a first defence admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the plaintiff's statement of claim, and denied the allegations contained in paragrap3 2, 8, 9 and 10 of the said statement. For a second defence he pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to sue on behalf of himself and all the other aboriginals named in the certificate of title referred to in the statement of claim. For a third defence he pleaded that the plaintiff was barred from commencing this action by virtue of the provisions of the Native Lands Act Amendment Act, 1891., By an amended statement of defence the defendant (Sir W. L. Bullbr) pleaded further that the plaintiff was stopped from bringing this action— (a) By reason of the plaintiff's laches and delay, and (b) by reason of the action No. 4221, in which Hapiate Rangitewhata and others are plaintiffs, and Archibald Paisley Stuart and John Davies are defendants, now pending.

Tamihana te Hoia, flohaia Pohau and KirionaTu where were examined, when the Court adjourned.

On Wednesday Mr W. Bribson, Areta te Popo, and Hakaria te Whamahutu gave evidence, when Mr Menteath applied for an adjournment on the ground that the plaintiff was absent in the Waikato. Mr Gully opposed, and His Honor re fused the application.

Mr Menteath then intimated that hid case was closed.

For the defence Mr Gnlly called Mr John Davios, Alexander Mac donald, and Sir Walter Buller, whose evidence was not concluded when the Gouit rose.

Yesterday Sir Walter Buller continued his evidence, and sf.er counsel had addressed the Court Bis Honour reserved judgment.— N.Z. Tumi.