S.M. COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 196, 1 September 1903, Page 4

S.M. COURT.

Monday, 31st August, 1903.—Before] Mr K, L. Stanford, S,M, ! _____ UNDEFENDED CASES. | Ctattley v. Dobbin, claim £5 3s. No appearance of defendant. Judgmeut for amount claimed and costs 103, 0. Carter v. Fromont, claim £8 13s 53, balance of account. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for the amount claimed and costs Bs. CLAIM FOR REHEARING. Humphries v. Hoobevr. Mr Hutchen for plaintiff and Mr Wilson (Roy and Wilson) for defendant. Mr Wilson said this was an application for a rehfariug of a case some timn back, in which an adjournment was granted on Monday last to enable an affidavit to ba got. Mr Shatter Wtston's affidavit had been got and was filed that morning. The S.M., after reading the affidavit, said "This is very interesting, Mr Wilson, but I do not see where it comes

Mr Wilson said the case turned on the pare Mr Hamphries bad taken in getting legislation affecting the validation of certain titles to certain lands. He proaeedod to quote dates to show that the agreement between his client and plaintiff had been made prior to the transfer, and the amendment which his friend had got, to put himself right with the Court, had been unnecessary. He held that if the facts now available had been before the Court at the hearing the plaintiff would have been nonsuited. The S.M. eaid it appeared that Mr, Wilson contended that the legislation of 1895 and 1896, promoted by the plaintiff Humphries, did not effect the purpose of securing a title, but that the legislation of 1902 did, but: that Mr. Humphries did not secure this later legislation.

Mr. Hutchen opposed the application and quoted authorities to show that it was outside the rule. He held that Mr, Weston's affidavit supported his case. :

The <3.M. said it was a question if Mr, Weston's evidence had not been available at the hearing of the case. Mr. Wilson contended that the fact that Mr. Weston would give evidence had only come out in the course of the trial, i The S.M. said that had all the evidence be now had been before him it would not have altered bis decision. He felt Bure there was an agreement between the parties, and thought it should have been produced.. It was clear to him that Humphries agreed to promote Iptfislation, and did so right up to 1902, whoa an Act was passed which validated certain titles in which Hooker was interested. After some further argument the application for a re-hear-ing was refused, with costs. The Oourt rose.