Palmerston Supreme Court.

Manawatu Herald, 23 April 1904, Page 2

Palmerston Supreme Court.

THURSDAY, zist APRIL. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. In the Supreme Court on Thursday afternoon and evening the hearing of the case J. Stevens, Easton and Austin v. Win. Pearce, of Oroua Bridge, was continued. "This is an action for the specific performance of an agreement to lease 2,200 acres on the Motoa estate, with compulsory purchasing clause at over £22,000. The case was opened at the February sitting of the Supreme Court, when Mr Baldwin, for defendant, raised the preliminary point that the agreement between the parties was invalid on various grounds, and in particular, that the lease was to con* tain all usual “ and necessary ” covenants. Hearing was adjourned to Wellington, to take argument on the point. On Thusrday Mr Justice Cooper gave his decision on this question. Heruled that the words “ and necessary " were covered in the word “ usual." The application for a nonsuit would be overruled, and defendant must be called upon to establish his case. The case then proceeded, and at the conclusion of the evening sitting, it was adjourned till 9 o’clock Friday morning. Mr Baldwin addressed the Court at coniderable length on the question of title and other points, and then adduced evidence in support of his case, the Court sitting till a fairly late hour on Thursday night.

FRIDAY, 22nd APRIL.

On Friday morning evidence was given on behalf of the plaintiffs by Mr R. S. Abraham in support of the contention in the statement of claim that an English company was in process of foundation to assist in developing the estate. Counsel for the defence addressed the Court, and his Honor, after reciting several allegations of the statements of claim and defence, said the evidence of the principal parties to the suit was distinctly contradictory. He added he would not express an opinion as to which he would believe. Both Messrs Stevens and Pearce were respectable settlers and both were interested, the one in proving his case and the other in disproving it. On the first line of defence, that the land was free from floods, his Honor said that heconsidered that the plaintiffs had not established their case, but on the question of the carrying capacity ot the land his decision was that the defendant had noC disproved the statement ot the plaiai tiffs. On all law points his Honor reserved judgment.