HIRSCHBERG V. HALL.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume I, Issue 51, 23 December 1867, Page 3

HIRSCHBERG V. HALL.

As tie case of Hirschhefg v. Hall has oxcited considerable interest in tie Wairarapa where those interested and the circumstances of the case are so wellknown we have taken care to have it frilly and carefully reported. The issues of the case, with the answers returned by the jury, were as follows: 2a. Was the said James Smith described in the deed of conveyance of the land in question by Charles Booking Carter as James Smith, of the Wairarapa, settler, the James Smith who conveyed to the plaintiff or the James Smith who conveyed to the defendant ? Answer—The James Smith described was the James Smith who conveyed to the plaintiff. 6. Did any person, and who, at or about the same time, become entitled to have a conveyance from the said Charles Booking Carter of the section numbered 117, on the plan of the town of Greytown ? Answer—There was not sufficient evidence to show. _ 7. Was the land in the . declaration mentioned conveyed by mistake by, the said Charles Booking Carter to the other person who was entitled to have a conveyance of the section numbered 117, and was the said section numbered 117 conveyed by mistake to the ssid James Smith, of WeHingWn merchantf Answer— Section S3 was conveyed by mistake. The following issues v7ere admitted by the Counsel on both sides 1. Was the land sought- to .be recovered in this action granted to Charles Booking Carter ns in the declaration alleged ?

2. Was such land conveyed by the said Charles Booking Carter to James Smith, of the Wairarapa, settler ? 3. Was such land conveyed by the said James Smith to plaintiff?

4. Were the Crown Grant and several deeds of conveyance in the declaration mentioned duly registered ? 5. Is the defendant in possession of the land sought to be recovered in this action ? The circumstances of the'case are so well-known that we will nol enter upon them, but we would wish to .correct a mistake very generally made of thinking that because the Counsel for the defendant claimed the verdict as one in favor of his 'client it is or v ill eventually prove such. The matter is very far from being so thoroughly decided, and may cause considerable farther litigation. The acre certainly is now in Hall’s possession; but the deed by which defendant claims the right to hold is in the possession of the plaintiff.