MASTERTON APPEAL CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXX, Issue 8436, 7 May 1907, Page 7

MASTERTON APPEAL CASE.

Judgment in the Masterton appeal case of Donald Donald v. Ah Lop was given in the Court of Appeal, at Wellington, yesterday, says the Post. Ah Lop was a market gar-"■de-uer who in 1888 leased land from .DonaJd. This land had been mortgaged by Donald, and in 1894 the mortgagees sold the land to other •Chinese—Ah Lin and Wing SingDonald joining in the conveyance. ■Ah Lop was indebtsd to Donald for unpaid rent at time of the sale, and •as sequel to legal proceedings for recovery Donald obtained an order committing Ah Lop to prison for three,month3. Subsequently Ah Lop ■brought an action against Donald and kh Lin and Wing Sing, in which he -alleged that Donald <iad wrongfully sold the land to Ah Lin and Wing • Sing in fee simple without giving them any notice of the said lease, ■ and concealing the said lease from them; that such lease was tnen a ; good, valid and subsisting leas®; and that by,such wrongful act the plaintiff lost . the benefit of the of lyears then unexpired. On . these grounds ptaintiff claimed £2OO. Ah Lop also alleged that he Was wrongfully evicted from the lands by his Mpngoliah relatives,, who were the ■actual trespassers, according to him. In the judgment of the. Court of Appeal, however, there had been, no physical ejection of Ah Lop,„nor any violenca with that object; that, in fact, the only fighting that took place was in regard to a dispute ■about work. Ah Lop did not assert his rights under the lease, but took his personal property and left the place. It had been subsequently admitted by Ah Lop that his brother .Ah Lin had taken the place over. ( If he had any grievance it was against Ah Lin and Wing Sing for having refused to continue a lease made to ■ him. The Court of Appeal judgments, were given yesterday morning. They disallowed redress granted 'to Ah Lop in the Supreme Court by the .Chief Justice and awarded Donald nominal damages (one farthing) on account of a breach of implied covenant for title. As, however, he had succeeded also on the •only substantial ground of the case' he was allowed costs of the appeal in the court below. The appeal was heard by Justices Williams, Denniston, Chapman and Button. 1