SUPREME COURT. Before His Honor Mr. Justice Stephen, Thursday, May 5. Dorset v. Bell.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume IX, Issue 810, 7 May 1853, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Before His Honor Mr. Justice Stephen, Thursday, May 5. Dorset v. Bell.

The defendant moved that this injunction should be dissolve!, having"filed| his answer. The Attorney-General, (Mr. D. Wakefield.) and Mr. King appeared ,tfor the defendant in support of the motion, and Dr. Evans for the plaintiff against it. Mr. Wakefield stated in detail the answer of defendant, and alleged that there were some material misstateraents of the plaintiff's title, which affected his claim to the injunction — particularly that the plaintiff alleged by his bill that he had purchased of the New Zealand Company 100 acres of land at £1 per acre, whereas in fact he had purchased one section of land, consisting of one Town acre, and 100 acres. This, Mr. Wakefield contended, was a material fact kept back by the plaintiff, for it might be, and in fact was well known, that the Town acre was the more valuable portion of the section, and therefore it was not true that the plaintiff had bought 100 acres, as alleged by him, for £100. It was also contended by Mr. Wakefield that the lands undfr the land orders in respect of which the plaintiff claimed title had been duly executed — by the plaintiff under his own land order having applied for and obtained a Crown Grant of the Town section, and being reported entitled to a grant of a block of land at Rangitiki, which included the country section under his own land order, and that plaintiff had received Compensation Scrip in respect of such land order under a certain arrangement between the New Zealand Company and their land purchasers in New Zealand. Tt was further contended that the land order transferred to the plaintiff by Mr. G. Wakefield, and under which the plaintiff claimed, a right to relief was also executed. Mr. E. G. Wakefield having selected the Town and Country sections under such land order, and had also claimed Crown Grants in respect thereof, and that a Crown Grant of the Town section in Mr. E. G. Wakefield's name was executed, and ready to be delivered when Mr. Wakefield submitted that the plaintiff had no equity for the Injunction upon anything that appeared from the bill and answer, and that ! as the Crown was interested in the matter that the Attorney General for the colony ought to be made a party. Mr. Wakefield urged several grounds of demurrer which we understood have to be argued. Mr. King in support of the motion alleged that, as the order for the Injunction was obtained by the plaintiff, and granted by the Court on the assumption that the land order in respect of which he claimed to be entitled, as transferee from Mr. E. G. Wakefield, was an unselected land order, that the Injunction must stand or fall upon that land ordei being unselected, which not being the case the Injunction must be dissolved. It appeared that Mr. E. G. Wakefield had selected the town and country sections, and had actually applied for Crown Grants thereof, and that in February last the Crown Grant of the town section was executed by his Excellency Sir George Grey, and wa3' ready for delivery to Mr. E. G. Wakefield. That with regard to the country sections so selected, he, Mr. E. G. Wakefield had sold one half to various parties, and the other half possibly went to the plaintiff under his transfer supposing there had been a proper transfer, which Mr. King contended had not taken place, as Mr. E. G. Wakefield had no further interest in the land order after having made the application for the Crown Grant thereunder, and a Crown Grant of the town section being executed. Mr. King also contended that the bill filed by the plaintiff was untenable as' several of the parts stated therein were either untrue or not sufficiently stated with all the material parts, and that as facts which were material had been omitted by the plaintiff in his Bill, the injunction being an ex pane one ought to be dismissed. Mr. King cited several authorities on the subject, and submitted to his Honor that as the Land Order in .respect of which the Injunction was granted was selected, and not unselected as alleged by the plaintiff on his application for the Injunction that it ought to be disolved. Mr. King however stated that he was prepared to go into the whole case if required. His Honor Mr. Justice Stephen said, that as Dr. Evans wished some little rime to argue the case he should adjourn it till Tuesday next, when Mr. King is to be heard on behalf of the motion generally, which -involves we believe the whole merits.