SUPREME COURT IN BANCO.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VI, Issue 1864, 13 December 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT IN BANCO.

BUCHANAN v; JStqA-TDERe',

At the'trial it was pvovedjhat the, plaintiff was Jose's" from certaitfliaUves' of'a blook.oiEland. A gf ; this blook '. was, occupied 'by; .tlie. defendant.without- any/ title..'; He a wharo, -apd'i cultivation^tbe^e, ;: the. ground being fenced The'plainttff liad;never b^en"in actual' ppssession .of' the land, hut:had sent., men to put. up a.fence across at-..-They Were, however, forcibly'-'prevented by? ; defendant,' ■ The'plaintiff .had. obtained a'verdictsTof £10" for trespass,;\ Mr Ghapinatfiow. moved- a-non'suif; ••pursuant to leave-feserYed. The action : is founded on-possession, actuftlj or" cofi: structive, but here tlie! possession '-■ of ..the defendant.ia exclusive). ;.rThe plaintiff himsel|admjtted;he. had pre- ' vented ■ from' taking possession. ■; -The abortive fenqe, bo far from 'being an. act ..of! possession, proves that the defendant 'alone, had* possession';:.■ . ..■ :. ... . -.;_> '",-- -■ Mr" Izard for.-.thft plaintiffs; Thifcaso: is virtually :that mentioned; bjr'.Mr Justice. Maule in- Jones v Chapman, .2 Ex. 803, when, of two'-nieudisputing in a field, the one with'tlt'e'-'lS'held'tp' •be in possesion, .Tho entry iffir-the purpose of making a fence is sufficient as aiv entry against' a wrong-doer. Butcher v Butcher, 7 B. and- 0.; Anderson v Kadcliffe, 29 L.J., Q.B. 128.

Mr Justice Richmond : There is no doubt about the criterion applied in Jones v Chapman, but in this case I do not think Mr Buchanan was in possession; the defendant was in exclusive possession, and forcibly resisted every attempt to take possession ; that distinguishes this case from Jones v. Chapman, ,> ■ ' little absolute' tor nonsuit; cost on the lowest Bcale, The court then rose.--N.21. Times.