SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5532, 19 December 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Wednesday, Dsckmber 18. (Before bis Honor the Chief Justice.) WHILTON V. KIMIUT3TEK. This was an action for £2O for use and occupation of certain land at Kaiwarra. Mr. Gordon Allan (with him Mr. Brandon, iun.) for plaintiff; Mr. Travera for defendant. . It appeared by plaintiffs case that some years ago certain Maoris alleged to he the owners of the piece of land in dispute leased it to Messrs. Noras, Willeston, and Bigmead by a deed which was attested by Mr. Ebenezer Baker. These persons continued to hold it till the 14th June, 1873, when by deed attested by Mr. E. S. Cheeseman they assigned their interest to Whilton. The land was partially cleared, but remained unfenced, and "Whilton only partially fenced it. It lies on the Kaiwarra Stream, and is bounded on one side by the property of the defendant Kilminster. In March, 1876, Kilminster went to plaintiff and said he found by the survey just then completed that a house and other buildings which he had erected were actually on plaintiff's land, and he wißhed to come to some arrangement about the matter. After some negotiations the parties agreed that 21 acres of Whilton's land should be leased to Kilminster for 7 years at a rental of £lO a year. Kilminster had since occupied the land, and had rebuilt the house, but on application being made had refused to pay the rent. It was admitted that Kilminster had occupied this 21 acres prior. to Whilton's assignment, and had always occupied it np to and since 1876 without interruption on the part of Whilton, because he did not know the line between himself and Kilminster. No agreement or lease was ever signed. Mr. Travera said be should call no evidence. The fact was that although his client had agreed to lease the land as stated he had found that plaintiff really had no title, inasmuch as the natives had no power to lease. Therefore he had declined to complete the transaction by signing the acreement which had been drawn up. On the facts as stated by plaintiff he should contend that plaintiff must be nonsuited. It was resolved that on a future day the law point 3 involved should be discussed in banco. The Court then adjourned.