SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 278, 25 November 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

one Herbert Gaby to the plaintiff of the land in question; that the moneys secured by the mortgage were unpaid, and that the land without the timber thereon would be aa insufficient security to the plaintiff. The jury found for the plaintiiff in aIL the issues.

CIVIL SITTINGS. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.] Sargood and others v. Macintosh. The following are the issues that were sent to the jury yesterday, together with their fiudiugs therein. No. 2a and No. 2b were added by the Judge, on the motion of Mr. Conolly. The special finding in No. 3 was arrived at by instruction of the Judge, and would be argued in the court at Dunedin :— 1. At the time of the making of the agreement in the declaration mentioned, and as part and parcel thereof, was it distinctly agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, that the defendant should become liable for the payment of the two bills of exchange for .£l9l 19s. Bd. each, only in the event of their being first duly accepted by the firm of Fleming and Murray, and atterwards duly presented for payment, and dishonored by such acceptors at maturity ? — No. 2. Were the said bills of exchange eve* accepted by the firm of Fleming and Murray ? — No. 2a. Were the said bills dishonored by nonacceptance ?— No. 2b. Were the said bills ever presented to Messrs. Fleming and Murray for payment, or was any demand for payment made of Fleming and Murray at due date ? — No. 3. Was notice of dishonor of the snid bills given by the plaintiffs to the defendant ? — Special finding in effect was as follows : — The letters from plaintiffs to defendant, dated respectively loth and 19th January, notifying non-payment of bills by Mes-rs. Fleming and Mv ray, were pos-ted by plaintiffs, and received by defendant within a reasonable time; and no other notice of dishonor was given. 4. Have the plaintiffs been paid the amount of the said two bills ?— No. 5. Did the said firm of Fleming and Murray make and execute a deed of assignment for the benefit of their creditors, and if so ■when?— Yes. December 16th, 1869, Cullen v. Dive. This was an action in which the plaintiff, as mortgagee of certain land at Mahakipawa in Marlborougb, sought an injunction against the defendant to restrain him from cutting timber upon the said land. Mr. A. A.lauis and Mr. Kingdom appeared for th« plaintiff and Mr. Couolly for the defendant. On the part of the plaintiff evidence was adduced to prove the mortgage from

got four notices to post up at the corner of the block. Ou the 28th March 1 went to the Wardeu's Court to answer any ■objections that might be made against granting my application. No oKjectiou was lodged. The Warden tolel mo that in the mi-Idle of the month, a block of 80 acres including that for which I had applied, had been proclaimed a public reserve, but that an arrangement would be Emsde whereby 50 acres of it would be let in 10 acre lots, of which I should have one, and that the Government would have it survej-ed immediately. I accepted that arrangement in lieu of my first application. Tlio £10 still rt-jnains as security for the survey. I have n.ver received the tease, and and wi>.s toid on the 29th June I should not gel it. Cross-examined : I went to the Wanga■peka for ihe express purpose of oblainiug an agricultural lease. 1 nuvcr applied to ihe Superintendent for it. T. A. S. Kyunersley: I was Warden at Wangapeka. At the first Court I held, an application, which I think w;ts signed hy Warnock and Disher, was presented hy Dreycr. The explication was for an agticultuial lease of 30 acres. The application was received. I came to Nelson shortly after end ascertained that it was marked on the map us a reserve. I recommended that 50 acres should be let in 10 acre blocks. The Superintendent authoi - Ssed me to let the l«nd at once, and he ■would recommend the Waste Lands Bo:»rd to grant the- leases for three years. When I vreut bark Dreyor applied again, and he then accepted the TO acre block. I afterwards ananged with Mr. Bain to survey Sliose blocks. I retaiued Dreyer's deposit ef £10 to pay for the survey. This concluded the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Adams claimed a non-suit, on the ground that it had not been shown that the Superintendent had tbo power to grant the lease. His Worship, however, overruled this, ■stating that it would be very unfair to the public if the Government were to attempt to defend an action of this kiLd on such .grounds. Oswald Cuitis: I remember a conversation between Mr. Kynnersley and myself •referring to the reserve at Wangapeka. H« recommended that it should be divided into two parts, thirty acres being reserved •for the township, and the remaining 50 acres surveyed in 10- acre blocks with, a Tiew of their being leased as paddocks. I ■said I would bring the matter before the 1 Waste Lands Board. Mr. Kynnersley *aid there were persons ready to take up ■Sbese blocks and cultivate them irame•dUately. I don't think he mentioned any blames. The land was then proclaimed a •seserve by the Commisioner of Crown Xiiods under the Waste Lands Acf, and She necessary survey was authorised to be -sttade. Since that, some applications for leases have come in, Dreyer's being one of them. This I think was in the monih of -«luae. They were considered by the Ex<ee«tive and it was determined not to grant say leases at present. The land has not j yet been granted by the Governor. Dreyer saw me in Wellington iv August. I saw Mr. Kynnersley at the same time Vfho said that trusting to the concurrence I had given him in his proposal to lease the land iv small blocks, he had promised some persons that they should have leases, Dreyer being one of them. I said iv that case I should ask the Executive to re-cou-■siiicr the matter. This was done, but the previous decision was coufirmed. I had nut authorised Mr. Kyuucrsley to promise leases to any persons. In leasing re serves it has always been customary to lay the application before the Executive. George Hodgson, Clerk to the Executive Council : No. formal applications Slave been made for leases of the Wangapetcu reserve, but they were made through Mr. Kynnersley by letter. On the 27th <JTune there was a meeting of the Executive, when it was resolved not to grant any lease of this reserve. The counsel for the plaintiff and defendant havirg addressed the Bench, his Worship said that he should reserve his Judgment until to-morrow morning.