SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5710, 18 July 1879, Page 5

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Thursday, July 17. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond.) FIRTH V. BROWNLEE. In the above case his Honor the Chief Justice delivered the judgment of the Court as follows :—“ This was an application for a rule for a new trial on two grounds. Four grounds are mentioned, but only two were argued, viz., the second and fourth. The second is :— ‘ That by virtue of Davies being a party to, and executing the two assignments of lease after the laud was granted to him, and by virtue of the plaintiff having taken possession thereof under the lease prior to the alleged trespass, the plaintiff, as the bona fide purchaser, without notice of the defendant’s purchase was entitled to the timber as against the defendant,’ The fourth is:—‘That the sale note to defendant of the 25th October, 1871, was improperly admitted in evidence without the proof of cancellation of stamp required by section 9 of the Stamp Act, 1876.’ The matter stood over til] the record and other papers could be brought from Blenheim. After looking over the papers I have come to the conclusion that clearly the concurrence by the lessor in the assignments only amount to consent, and does not operate as a conveyance of any new interest or estate, though the Crown grant took place before this concurrence. The absence of notice is immaterial, as an equitable interest enly was created. As to the stamp question, I think the proper course was taken. There is power to permit admission of a document upon the stamps being affixed, and the fine paid. The new Act applies to instruments made before it came into force.” Mr. Justice Richmond said he agreed with the decision against both grounds, and the rule was therefore refused. PALMER V. THOMPSON AND SHANNON. Mr. Allan, and with him Mr. Stafford, appeared in support of their demurrer to the plaintiff’s declaration. Mr. Travers, and with him Mr. Edwards, appeared in support of the declaration. The action was brought to recover an advance of £SOOO and interest made by the plaintiff to the defendant in consideration that his son should be taken into partnership. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made themselves responsible for the repayment of this amount, and set out in his declaration the correspondence and documents that have passed on the subject. The defendants’ reply was that the facts set out did not shew a privity of contract between the plaintiff and themselves. After hearing arguments of counsel, their Honors reserved judgment. RUSSELL T. ARIHI. Mr. Travers obtained a rule dismissing this action unless the plaintiff takes the next step within a mouth after the service of the rule ; the costs of this application to be costs in the cause. POSTPONEMENTS. Mr. Travers mentioned the matter of estates settled by Rhodes’ will, and stated that counsel for all parties would consent to the order asked for. The matter was postponed till 10 a.m. next day, for the purpose of obtaining assent of counsel. The case of Arihi v. Russell was postponed till the next sitting In Banco. The Court then adjourned till 10 a.m. next day, when the cases of Houghton r. Moody andthe Arbitration of Wellington Corporation and Watson will be taken.