TRUST COMMISSIONER’S COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1164, 2 October 1882, Page 2

TRUST COMMISSIONER’S COURT.

This Day [Before M. Pihch, Esq., R.M.] The application of Read’s Trustees to have certificate of lease issued to them of certain lands in Matawhero No, 1, and opposed by Mr Phillip Bond, who also claims that certificate should be issued to him as having a prior right, came on for hearing today. Messrs. W. L. Rees and E. fl'. Ward appearing for Read’s Trustees, and Mr H. E. Kenny and Mr W. R. Robinson for Mr Philip Bond. Mr Rees stated the case on behalf of Read’s Trustees, the Trust Commissioner having elected to hear argrment, and then deal with the question of Bond’s appeal and that of Read’s Trustees simultaneously. Mr Rees at some length reviewed the Judge’s decision, calling especial attention to the terms in which his Honor Judge Richmond referred the case back for the Trust Commissioner’s re-consideration. Mr Kenny then addressed the Court as opposing the aetion of Read’s Trustees, and calling especial attention to the fact that Bond’s second application for certificate was unknown to the Judge when referring the case back for re-consideration, and defining at length the actual meaning of redui que trust. The question was, did an implied trust exist, and were Read’s Trustees aware of an implied interest existing in Bond.

The learned counsel submitted that no I fresh objection should be lodged as such . lodgment would be highly irregular. The i Trust Commissioner hero reminded the learned counsel that this was not a court, j I but at enquiry. This tho learned counsel I denied, urging that the judicial forms ob- , served in a Trust Court actually afforded | certain proof that this is a court to all intents and purposes. Ho would decidedly object to the opposite side lodging any fresh objection, as proceedings might be by such . means prolonged to an unnameablo length, i The prior right of Bond under his lease, as : signed in 1880, as compared with that of i Reads Trusrees whose lease was signed in ! 1882, was undoubted. There was a celebra- j ted legal axiom qui prior esl tempore, patior i eat jure. “He who is first in time, is first i in right.” Mr Rees said he should prove by Mr ' Bond’s evidence that Reads Trustees had i made a prior agreement with Wi Haronga to 1 that with Bond. Bond was at the time ' aware of it. His Worship called the attention of the ’ learned counsel on both sides to the circum- ' stances surrounding Bond’s application for ■ certificate, of which His Honor Judge Rich- | mond was evidently unaware. Mr Rees stated, in reply to questions asked j by the Court, that he would use a fresh ob- j jection in addition to arguments already heard. Mr Kenny requested that a note should be taken of his objections to re-opening the question. * His Worship replied that ho would hear objections up to the very last moment. This is not a Court, it is an enquiry. The objection would be put in to the Trust Commissioner who would give due notice to the counsel. Both these cases would stand ad jourzMjd until tho 30th iuait.