RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume V, Issue 279, 26 November 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before J. Sharp Esq. R.M.) This Day. Dreyer v. Superintendent of Nelson. The Resident, Magistrate in giving judgment in this case s:<itl: I had better a^ain refer to the. point raised yesterday by Mr. Adams, in which he contended that the Superintendent h;id no power to issue a lease, hut. I held that for the purposes of at) action of tliis description, notwithstanding that no grant of the reserve had been made hy the Governor, if it could Im< sliDwn that, tiie pro[>er autiioritics hnd mudn f.uy promian of the lease they ought m be hel<i respon.iibie for ,-,uch promise. The practice liiis lwavs been to deal with these reserves as tliough the land had beeu granted by the Groverument, and it, is cleaily shown that, in this instance, the Government did deal with a pottiou of this I'lofk, as it entertfiined the application of Wiessenhavern aud refused to «rani him a lease. With repaid to the next two jmiiitH rui.sed by Mr. Adams, I l li i nk. thai the firs tr of t.hcm, namely, that there v\aa no contrict in vvriiiiiir, musi. prove filial to the plaintiff, but. even suppo>inji that sudi :t contract did exist, had the Supei inieiident the power to enter into an agreement for the lease of the land? I think not, as the Superintendent

aloue cannot do so, and therefore on a point of law judgement must be for the defendant. Then arises the question — whether under the provisions of the 47th Section of the Resident Magistrate's Act I have the power to waive these points of law and give judgement for the plaintiff for damages for any amount whatever. This is really a case of principal and agent. Mr. Kynnersley must have thought, and co doubt did , think, that he was fully authorised by the Superintendent to deal with these lands, but there can bo no doubt that the Superintendent alone could not so delegate these' powers. But if evidence had boeu adduced so as to show indisputably that such a promise as is stated to have been made, had amu'vlly been given by tlie Superintendent, I should have been perfectly justified in giviDg plaintiff damages hut this has been by no means clearly proved Nor has il been shown that auy ratification of the conlrar-' ulterior to tha , --;.^'-' being promised by Mr. Kynnersley had heen made. Judgement must, therefore, on these grounds be for the defeudant with costs.