Appeal Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 87, 16 April 1904, Page 3

Appeal Court.

(Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON. April 15. In the Mangiatoro case Dr. Findlay was engaged all the morning delating with the aspect of sales by the Registrar. He claimed that the legislature by its action must be deemed to have approved the practice that had established itself, and pointed out the confusion that would arise and the disturbance of titles if; the court cohH strued the statute us desired by appellunt. This afternoon Mr I). M. Findluy, following Dr. Fimllay on behalf of tho bank, addressed the court upon the facts, and quoted authorities lo show that if the appellant had ever had any right to dispute the validity of the sale he had lost it by acquiescence, laches and delay.

Mr Treadwoll then addressed the court on behalf of the Assets Realisation Hoard, submitting that whether or not appellant had any remedy against the bank the Assets Realisation Hoard was Die purchaser for vuluc without notice of any defect in the title of the bank, and us such was entitled to retain the property us against all parties. The court stopped Mr Treadwell on this point, intimating that subject to what it might hear from Mr Kees in reply it was of opinion that appellant could have no claim against properly in the hands of the board, and that his remedy, if any, must be against the bank alone.

The court adjourned to Monday morning, when Mr Kees will bo heard in reply.