SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5249, 19 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Friday, January 18. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast and Mr. Justice Richmond.) WILSON V. LAWRENCE. Iu this case, which- was- a demurrer to a declaration, judgment hiul.-been reserved, and was now delivered by their Honors as follows : —ln this case we have seen no reason to alter the opinion which we had formed at the conclusion of Mr. Gordon Allan’s argument in support of the demurrer to the declaration. It appears, to us that the deed of 4th August, 18t!6, which purports to assign to the plaintiff :ami his co-trustees the rents and profits of a section in'the town of Napier upon trusts for 'the two sous of the defendant, Alex. Browne, was and is a valid instrument, which, having been l duly registered, was and is irrevocable by the settlor, and incapable, according to the law of New Zealand, of being over-reached by any subsequent sale by him. .The deed in question improperly recites the underlease to Mr. W. R. Robinson as an assignment of the settlors’whole term of 21 years.. In point of fact, the last day of the original term appears to have been excepted, so that a reversion was left in the settlor. 1 This reversion may, not have passed by. the deed ,of 4th August, 1866. It is unnecessary for us to decide that point, because Litt, p. 228, makes it clear that in such case the rent reserved ou the uuderlease passed as a reut-seck, leaving a fruitless reversion iu the assignor. The demurrer must therefore be overruled. HENDERSON Y. HIE QUEEN (SPECIAL CASE).: Mr. Travers appeared on behalf of the applicant, and Mr. Izard for her Majesty the Queeu. The case as stated for the opinion of the Court was for the construction of certain words in ■ a contract which suppliant had entered upon to make .a certain railway on the West Coast qf the South Island. Mr. Travers'contended that plaintiff should bo allowed “ extras ’’ for work rendered necessary by “ subsidence ” in the embankments, notwithstanding that he was hound by terms of the contract to complete work caused by , “ shrinkage.” Mr. Izard argued that plaintiff was bound by his contract to allow fpr subsidence ; . aud after counsel’s contentions on'both sides had ..been heard. Their Honors intimated that they would reservejudgment. ■ ■ The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock the following day.