REEFTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 896, 5 December 1871, Page 2

REEFTON.

(from our own correspondent.) Iu consequence of the heavy rain on Wednesday night, and flooded state of the Inangahua river on Thursday, the Warden was unable to reach Ecefton until noon on Friday. The Court was then adjourned until 2 p.m., when it met for the despatch of business. Tho attendance was very large , and considerable interest was manifested in t! e case of DRURT T. KELLY. In this case the complainant sought to recover a one-eighth share in JS T o. 2 South, Kelly' line, undor an agreement entered into in July, 1870, whereby the defendants or those under whom they claim agreed to transfer the share to Drury in consideration

of certain legal services to be rendere 1. Mr Staite, and with him Mr Guinness, appeared for the complainant, and Mr William Pitt, of Westport, defended. Mr Whitefoord was called to prove that certain services had been performed. The complainant was examined aud cross-examined at some length, as were also several of the defendants. Mi- Pitt then stated the case for the defence, contending that upon the evidence the complainant's version of the facts could not be relied upon ; that the contract was not binding even ,as between the original parlies, as there waß no consideration binding in law; that had there been any consideration the bulk of the defendants were strangers to the consideration, and in nowise privy t.) the contract, having bought their shares for value from the persons holding the certificate which by law is the only indicia of title by which purchasers could be guided. Further, that the contract being directed to the conducting of a suit then pending in the Warden's Court, was under the circumstances bad, as savouring of champerty and maintenance, the complainant taking a portion of the subject matter of the suit in payment. These contentions were supported by reference to various authorities which I was unable to follow through an address which lasted about two hours. Mr Staite then replied, going through and commenting upon the evidence, and all the points made for the defence. He contended that the con duct of the complainant in the matter had been honorable, and that his testimony was worthy of complete credit. The Warden, in giving judgment, said that the case presented many questions of difficulty, and that it had been well argued on both sides. He had arrived at, the conclusion that it was impossible to get over two points raised for the defence: Firstly, that the four defendants who had entered into the contract with the complainant in July could not bind their partners by an unauthorised disposition of a part of the substantial property of the company ; secondly, it was clear that persons dealing with registered owners of shares were not bound by any claims outside persous might have in reference to these shares. Pie agreed with counsel for defence that if they were so bound nobody would be safe in dealing with mining property. The Warden concluded a clear aud exhaustive summing up, giving judgment for the defendant with costs. The Court then adjourned at 11 p.m. until 9 a.m. the following day. Full report of the second day's proceedings 1 will forward in my next. I hear that the decision of the Warden is appealed against in Drury v. Kelly, and that the case will be tried before the District Court sitting in Westport on the 22 nd inst.