SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5424, 15 August 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Wednesday, August 14. (Before bis Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) BOCKIUDGB V. WARDELL. This was a rule nisi obtained by the defen* danb for a new trial of this action. Mr. Barton, with whom was Mr. Eitzherbert, appeared to show cause against the rule, and Mr. Izard in support of it. The rule was obtained on. the grounds—l. That the Judgo who presided at the trial misdirected the jury by telling them that the conveyance from Thomas Ingley to defendant was void under the Statute 32, Henry VIII, chap. 9. By this statute it is provided that any conveyance or agreement for sale of or for any interest in land is void if the vendor has been out of possession for a year and a clay preceding such conveyance or agreement. The second ground on which the rule nisi had been granted was that the verdict was against the weight of evidence on the eighteenth issue. This issue was as follows :—“Bid the defendant purposely abstain from inquiring into the nature and particulars of the possession of Robert. Buckridgc, and afterwards of his family, and of Thomas Wickens, with a view to avoid express notice of their title 1 ” To which issue the jury answered, “Yes.” As to the first ground, Mr, Barton, in showing cause, contended that the statute of Henry VIII was merely declaratory of the common law of England, which was the law of New Zealand ; that therefore, whether or not the statute referred to had been adopted under the Constitution Act, the law still was that any conveyance was void if the vendor had been out of possession more than a year and a day. As to the second point ho argued that there was more than sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in arriving at the conclusion they had come to on the eighteenth issue. Mr. Barton read the evidence, and quoted numerous authorities in support of his argument. Mr. Izard, in reply, contended as to the first ground that the statute of Henry VIII. did not apply in New Zealand, as ho submitted that it was virtually repealed by the passing of the New Zealand Conveyancing Ordinance. As to the second ground, Mr. Izard argued that although under the cases decided on the English .Registration Act express notice can bo inferred from the acts of the purchaser, yet under the New Zealand Registration Act, lu order to bring a purchaser within its provisions there must bo Homo direct evidence of notice

or intentional abstention from enquiry with a view to avoid express notice. After hearing the argument the Court reaarved judgment. DUURY V. REVELL. Judgment was given in this case, which was a rule calling on the Resident Magistrate at Greyrnouth to show cause why a conviction for breach of the railway by-laws against the plaintiff should not be quashed. Rule made absolute, without costs, on the understanding that no action should be brought against the defendant. The Court then adjourned until next (this) morning at 11 o’clock.