SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4597, 14 December 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Monday, December 13. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) DAVIS V. LYON. "His Honor delivered judgment as follows : There is no doubt that one trustee may sue his co-trustee without making the cestui que trusts parties, where the object of the suit is not the execution by the Court of the trusts, but is for the purpose of securing the trust property, or for some similar purpose. If the object of this suit is simply the obtaining an account by one trustee from his co-trustee of dealings with trust funds by that trustee, I think it clear that it is not necessary to make the cestui que trusts parties. It is contended on the part of the defendant that as the plaintiff alleges his title to an account to be by reason of his double capacity as trustee and cestui que trusts, the declaration is demurrable. However, looking at all the allegations of the declaration, and the prayer, I am of opinion that the plaintiff claims relief substantially as trustee and not as cestui que trust. At any rate, as the defendant has not confined his demurrer to so much of the declaration as claims relief on the plaintiff's position as cestui que trust, his demurrer is too large. On both grounds, I think the demurrer must be overruled. MILLAR V. COItPOBATION OP WANGANUI. This was a demurrer. Plaintiff, who had been employed by defendants as Surveyor, and had been dismissed, sued for damages for wrongful dismissal, contending that he had held office during good behaviour. The pleas were found to be bad, and also the declaration, and his Honor found that the plaintiff had no action, because the Municipal Corporations Act did not give the defendants the power to make appointments during good behaviour. All appointments must be during pleasure, and the Council could at any time dismiss an officer. MOUNTAIN V. HALL. This case had been heard before his Honor at the circuit sittings, but without a jury. The right to a piece of land some five inches wide is in dispute, plaintiff alleging that defendant had overstepped his boundaries. It was proved that the land occupied by plaintiff and defendant had been bought, as described in leases made, by the original grantee, a Mr. Wakefield. His Honor found for defendant. The Court then rose.