Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4463, 9 July 1875, Page 2

A case of more than ordinary importance came before the Resident Magistrate yesterday morning, viz., that of Martin v. Landstain. It seemed from the evidence given, that defendant had. purchased land at auction in Christchurch. He lived at Christchurch in July, 1869, and the land was situate in Canterbury ; but plaintiff, the vendor, resided in Wellington, and so also did his solicitor, Mr. Travers, who had drawn up the deed. The purchase money was not paid, and the question then arose, in which province ought proceedings to recover bo taken ? Mr. Travers selected Wellington, and when the case came on for hearing yesterday, Messrs. Brandon and Hart. appeared as witnesses, and, as experts, gave evidence that Mr. Travers’s law was correct. Mr. Izard, who appeared for defendant, argued strenuously that the Wellington Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. The Act was very explicit, and set forth, in the most unmistakable terms, that cases should be tried in the province in which the cause of action arose, and clearly—argued the learned gentleman—the cause of action must have arisen where the unfulfilled contract to purchase was made—at Christchurch. Therefore, the Wellington Court had no jurisdiction. In replication, Mr. Travers argued that according to all usages the purchase money was payable in the province in which the vendor resided, and where the office of the solicitor for the vendor who drew the deeds up was situated. The action had arisen because the money was not paid, and Wellington being the place where the money was payable, as a necessary following, the cause of action must have arisen in Wellington. His Worship decided to take time to consider his judgment. We may add that a special feature in the case is the fact that, if the decision be adverse to plaintiff it will probably upset his claim altogether. The present action was commenced just before the beginning of July, in order to bar the plea of the Statute of Limitations ; but if the case is taken into a ■ Canterbury Court, the statute may be effectually pleaded.

The City Council yesterday properly recognised its position in the matter of the discourtesy lately offered to the captain of the Easby. The piennaster brought the question before the Council by an absurd letter, in which he attempted to -justify his conduct, and after a couple of members had expressed themselves in sensible terms, the letter was referred to the Wharf Committee, who will probably take some decided step to prevent a recurrence of the disgraceful circumstance. Every rightthinking person must endorse Councillor Moss’s opinion that whenever a steamer arrives she should be attended by an officer, and that masters of vessels should not be put to inconvenience because the piermaster cannot wait a little for his dinner. With two well-paid officers, the harbormaster and piermaster, it is hard if such a small matter as this cannot he arranged.