Auckland Supreme Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 501, 25 September 1890, Page 2

Auckland Supreme Court.

GISBORNE CASES. (SPECIAL TO THE STAXDIBD ) A-cKtaxn, last nigh'. Several Gisborne cases ware before the Supreme Court in Banco to-day. In the case of Hapirana Tumapura v, Moore. Mr Rees moved for judgment for £25. Mr Cooper appeared for the defendant. Mr Rees said that tbe pleadings in the case, which was heard at Gisborne, were simple. It was one of trespass, and defendant denied the alleged trespass. Judgment was then given for defendant, with leave to plaintiff to make the present application. Mr Rees contended that His Honor had decided in the former trial in error as to possession of house. His Honor said it was good law that tbe person in possession was entitled to protection against all but another with a good title to what he hud possession of. Mr R ies then read from the evidence, to show that one Knight Thompson took the house, and that the plaintiff and his family resided in it, and that the plaintiff paid the rent. His Honor said the only question raised was whether Knight Thompson was not the person who should bring the action. Mr Rees said if it was correct that Knight Thompson had authority from the plaintiff than plaintiff had all the rights obtained by Thompson. Mr Cooper said fee did not dispute this. Mr Rees said he would therefore leave the case for His Honor, subject to reply to any points raised by Mr Cooper. Mr Cooper said the claim was that defendant had wrongfully broken into the house, and therefore it was incumbent on plaintiff to prove that it was hisdwe liaghouse, and not simply that ho redded in it. His Honor said this »p peered to be a question.hot so mnch of law as of fao'. Who was the occupier of the house? Not the person who happened to be sleeping in it, but the person who feed taken It and paid the rant. Thera could be no doubt that the house had been let to Thompson, who paid rent fir some weeks. Then Thompson went to Wellington, and Hapirana paid rent for gome weeks, but said ha paid for Thotnp son, and did not say Thompson was his sgent, or that ho was in possession of tha house. He must hold that bis judgment in ths lower Court was right, and that tbe motion must be dismissed, with costs 7guinets. In the case r f Matthews v. Craill, Mr Rees moved for a writ of prohibiti in on behalf of Mr Matthews- Mr Button appeared to oppose. IJa found on looking up the au'hmi’ies that, as claimed by Mr Rees, the R M. at Gisborne had no right to try the case and give judgment for Craill, because the question of title arose, though only by the "skin cf its teeth.” However, tha very slightest question cf title was sufficient to oust lhe jurisdiction of the lover Court. He would, however, ask I hat no costs be granted. Mr Rees asked for costs. Matthews hid occupied certain land, thinking ha had a tide to i'. Crai.l, without a shadow of claim to lhe title, ran his sheep on lhe land, and when Matth’ws impounded them he made a claim for damages. This claim the Magistrate allowed, holding that Matthews had no title. Hie Honor said he would order a writ of prohibition, with costs five guineas. On behalf of the N. Z. Native Land Settlement Company, Mr Hutton moved for a writ of attachment against Robert Ku.x for disobedience of an injunction issued against him on the 13th of Aunust ult. Mr Bees appeared for Knox, and held that Knox made nothing out of the timber cutting: Whether Knox's action wee judicious or not, he had' clearly obeyed tfeft injunction. He got no immoderate price for his teams, and he had a perfect right to lease his teams. Hia Honor said he wasconvinced in hie own mmd that thia was a sham on the part of defendant. He found in the affidavit statements that were not true, and therefore he had a right to disregard such affidavits altogether. He thought the alleged transaction between Hanii Puhi and Knox was illusive, and a writ iff attachinbof would issue. The copyright teat case arranged ts between H. T. Jones, appellant, and W. H. Atack, respondent, was adj >urned Uli next Monday atlernooii.