Information about Trove user: helenleary

View user profile in the Trove forum

Tags

Display options

top tags

Recent comments

Display options

Text corrections

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 5,825,333
2 noelwoodhouse 3,922,899
3 NeilHamilton 3,428,714
4 DonnaTelfer 3,327,304
5 Rhonda.M 3,140,785
...
149 Stanj 342,954
150 Ronda.SHambrook 341,895
151 Jodphrey 341,857
152 HelenLeary 336,089
153 ellipitt 332,499
154 Tabbers 328,304

336,089 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

November 2019 3,121
October 2019 5,749
September 2019 5,879
August 2019 1,550
July 2019 3,386
June 2019 3,648
May 2019 5,565
April 2019 6,510
March 2019 7,093
February 2019 6,767
January 2019 4,167
December 2018 4,848
November 2018 3,246
October 2018 4,142
September 2018 3,853
August 2018 3,416
July 2018 5,709
June 2018 4,558
May 2018 1,721
April 2018 799
March 2018 305
February 2018 9,267
January 2018 7,546
December 2017 9,066
November 2017 4,670
October 2017 4,528
September 2017 13,361
August 2017 15,644
July 2017 18,917
June 2017 7,231
May 2017 18,572
April 2017 2,001
March 2017 2,132
February 2017 2,706
January 2017 3,045
December 2016 3,705
November 2016 10,300
October 2016 10,428
September 2016 6,531
August 2016 6,508
July 2016 5,444
June 2016 15,447
May 2016 4,753
April 2016 5,144
March 2016 5,559
February 2016 1,297
January 2016 7,052
December 2015 4,220
November 2015 4,900
October 2015 6,636
September 2015 502
August 2015 3,886
July 2015 6,108
June 2015 4,785
May 2015 2,275
April 2015 2,485
March 2015 8,769
February 2015 4,637

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 JohnWarren 5,825,131
2 noelwoodhouse 3,922,899
3 NeilHamilton 3,428,585
4 DonnaTelfer 3,327,283
5 Rhonda.M 3,140,772
...
147 Stanj 342,954
148 Ronda.SHambrook 341,895
149 Jodphrey 341,857
150 HelenLeary 336,072
151 ellipitt 332,499
152 Tabbers 328,304

336,072 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

November 2019 3,118
October 2019 5,749
September 2019 5,879
August 2019 1,550
July 2019 3,386
June 2019 3,648
May 2019 5,565
April 2019 6,507
March 2019 7,093
February 2019 6,767
January 2019 4,167
December 2018 4,848
November 2018 3,246
October 2018 4,142
September 2018 3,853
August 2018 3,416
July 2018 5,709
June 2018 4,558
May 2018 1,718
April 2018 799
March 2018 305
February 2018 9,267
January 2018 7,546
December 2017 9,065
November 2017 4,670
October 2017 4,528
September 2017 13,355
August 2017 15,643
July 2017 18,917
June 2017 7,231
May 2017 18,572
April 2017 2,001
March 2017 2,132
February 2017 2,706
January 2017 3,045
December 2016 3,705
November 2016 10,300
October 2016 10,428
September 2016 6,531
August 2016 6,508
July 2016 5,444
June 2016 15,447
May 2016 4,753
April 2016 5,144
March 2016 5,559
February 2016 1,297
January 2016 7,052
December 2015 4,220
November 2015 4,900
October 2015 6,636
September 2015 502
August 2015 3,886
July 2015 6,108
June 2015 4,785
May 2015 2,275
April 2015 2,485
March 2015 8,769
February 2015 4,637

Hall o' fame ranking

Rank Corrector Lines corrected
1 jaybee67 314,433
2 PhilThomas 135,128
3 mickbrook 110,872
4 murds5 61,555
5 GeoffMMutton 53,528
...
1337 Drewfield 17
1338 Emem 17
1339 glitagrrl 17
1340 helenleary 17
1341 HelenProszenyak 17
1342 hmackmaloney 17

17 line(s) corrected.

Corrections by month

November 2019 3
April 2019 3
May 2018 3
December 2017 1
September 2017 6
August 2017 1


Recent corrections

Article Changed Old lines New lines
ITEMS OF NEWS. (Article), Wagga Wagga Advertiser (NSW : 1875 - 1910), Thursday 13 July 1882 [Issue No.870] page 2 2019-11-17 07:08 been fulfilled, situate at Cuddel! Creek, on
Hay (now Naraandera) office, 13th July, 1876;
down to Mr. SpilIer, on account of the
been fulfilled, situate at Cuddell Creek, on
Hay (now Narandera) office, 13th July, 1876;
down to Mr. Spiller, on account of the
ITEMS OF NEWS. (Article), Wagga Wagga Advertiser (NSW : 1875 - 1910), Thursday 13 July 1882 [Issue No.870] page 2 2019-11-17 07:05 IN pursuance of tho ailvortisement which
,has appeared ill' our columus, . Mr.. A. T.
Bolton 011 Tuesday nftonioon last offered for.
sale by public auction, at Mr. Monks', Pas
itoral Hotel, 040 acrcs very ;valuable selected
lands, upon 'Which all the:: conditions iiad
been fulfilled,-situate at Cuddel! Cicck, on
the Tuljbo run;' ? aii follows acvesjit
-Hay (now Naramlcra) ollicc, 13th July, 1S70;
additional conditional; purchase,' 228:f acics,
selected 19th October, 1S70. After con
siderable competition tho lot was knocked
.'dowii'to -;-Mr.^SpilIor,.«on account of -'tho.
owners of Tubbo run, for. 30a. ? per aero.
IN pursuance of the advertisement which
has appeared in our columus, Mr. A. T.
Bolton on Tuesday afternoon last offered for
sale by public auction, at Mr. Monks' Pas
toral Hotel, 640 acres very valuable selected
lands, upon which all the conditions had
been fulfilled, situate at Cuddel! Creek, on
the Tubbo run, as follows:- 411½ acres at
Hay (now Naraandera) office, 13th July, 1876;
additional conditional purchase, 228¾ acres,
selected 19th October, 1876. After con
siderable competition the lot was knocked
down to Mr. SpilIer, on account of the
owners of Tubbo run, for 30s per acre.
LAW INTELLIGENCE. SUPREME COURT, DARLINGHURST. MONDAY, JUNE 19. (Before the Chief Justice and a special jury.) THE DARLING HARBOUR BAND RESUMPTION. (Article), The Sydney Daily Telegraph (NSW : 1879 -1883), Tuesday 20 June 1882 [Issue No.921] page 3 2019-11-17 06:50 JUBY OOUBT.— Monday, June 19.
(Beforo Sir Goorgo Innes and a Jury of Four.) I
SqUATTEU v. SELEOTOlt. i
Mooue v. Smith.— Mr. Piloher and Mr. Cohen, in- |
structed by Mr. S. O. Brown, appeared for the plain- |
tiff, and Mr, Bogers 'and Dr. Donovan, instructed by I
Messrs. Holdsworlh and Evans, appeared for tho de- I
fondant. Tho trial of this aotion begun on Thursday I
morning. Tho nominal plaintiff was Mr. Fredorick I
Henry Mooro, proprietor of tho Tubbo Station, in the I
Murrumbidgeo district ; - and for the benefit of tho I
eBtato, ho sued the dofendant, Miss Annie Smith, a I
minor (who had soleotcd upon his run), for £500 I
damages for trespass. By consent, the issues wero I
reduced to the question as to the title of the plaintiff I
to recover compensation. For the plaintiff it was I
alleged that, for somo timo before the defendant ap- 1
plied for the selections and took them up, the plaintiff I
had .placed improvements upon certain, "measured I
portions," and as tho value of those improvements I
amounted to moro than £40 upon each portion, the I
portions wero, by Aot of Parliament, excluded by I
;soleotion. The Crown tenant, by virtuo of tho im- 1
. provements, applied to purchase the portions in July,
; : 1878, and the . selector did not come upon the ground
. until 18 months afterwards.
Mr. Bogers, who began his argument for the
Ho desired to observe that, when he referred on
Friday to the. dcoisions of tho Supremo Court, in
v rogardto.the land laws; ho mcantno disrespect to the
. . Court., Tho Legislature had intended that £1 should
p -b'b A bo espottded in;tho improvomont of oaohaoro of land, j
i l/ f,
but in these actions against tho unfortunate selectors
I the Court had been driven to givo decisions upon
the present action, ho hoped the jnry would remember
that on tho ono sido were the employees of the
I clin'ed towards the . squatter. But he was willing to
admit that tho witnesses for the defondant — chiefly
I selectors, insensibly favoured the defendant. All
I these witnesses said that tho fencing was utterly
I useless, and that a tank which had been sunk at
water, being intended merely to act as a scarecrow to t
evidence of Mr. M'Pherson, a licensed surveyor for ;
for tho Government to inquire into tho claim of the j
provements. That gentlemen had asserted that tho .
east and weBt fence upon the measured portions, and j
tho tank already referred to, were not improvements, j
I The plaintiff, besides, had placed tho improvements .
upon the land shortly before the land' was measured,
I when they must have known that it was about to be
I selected. Ho thought that if Mr. Peters, original owner
of the station had been still alivo, the' court would
not have seen this action, which had been brought t'y
I that gentleman's executors. An honest squnttcr did
not want to turn away a diligent tiller of the sou,
Btealcr and a nuisance to the district. The- action
I must have been brought from some sense ©5 duty
which tho testator, it no nad ncen auve, ivou» ».
have approved of. . _
Mr. Piloher, in addressing the jury for tho DlaiitiffV
pointed out that the connsel for the defendant, bod
indulged in a violent appeal to the sympathies of too
jury, nnd had designated tho class to which the
plaintiff belonged as the raoBt detestable race of
men upon earth. It was true that tlio gentlomail
I who had opened the Tubbo station was " absent in
behalf of his legatees, who resided in tho colony.
The real explanation was, that Mr. James Smith, tho
defendant's father, was trying to gather a largo es- :
tato for himself and his family, and by taking various
vantage, which would not have accrued to bim had
ho selected in his own name. Tho feeling of an-
I tagonism between selectors and squatters was faBt
I dying out in the rural districts, and ho was confident
I that in nine-tenths of the country neither sideBympa-
I thiscd with such hostile arguments as had been
I adduced against both classes of settlers. The
I wool producers who had been held up to execration
I were an estimable body of people, and had in hard
I times enabled the colony to tide over many dinicul-
I ties. The selectors were an equally worthy clasB, nnd
I tho timo was approaching when thoy would bo more
powerful in tho country than tho squatters. The
I proper way to settle this dispute was to take the
I mean between tho valuations of tho two sides, lue
I whole run had been fenced in, tanks had been sunk
I in it, and it had been subdivided. Sevontcon months
I before Mr. James Smith selected upon it. tlio plaintiff
I had made application concerning tho piece of land
I in nucBtion. showing that be firmly believed that ho
was entitled to purchase it. Tho application was under
Office, when Mr. Smith' applied for the land on bis
daughter's behalf. Tho plaintiff's witnessed assessed
tho original cost of the feneo at from £40 to £G0
a mile : while tho valuation' of tho defendant s wit
nesses ranged from £32 10s to- £-10 a mile. _ In refer
once to tho tank, tho ovidonee showed that it had cost
£58, and tho contractor bad to throw up tho work, as
he found that the ground waB too hard for sinking.
If the tank did not hold water tho drains which led
to it most have been in disorder.
His Honor, in Bumming up, said that a number ox
both sides wero altogether apart from the question.
Tho law had to bo administered as the Court found
it, and in the present case the issues for the jury wero
very simple,- the question being whether in December,
1879, improvements of tho valno of £40 had been
mado upon each of tho two measured portions. Tho .
law in referencetcr theso measured portions was pecu
liar, inasmuehas it strongly favoured the Crown lessees...
But it was clear tbat the improvement muBt bo upon
the particular measured portion for which the Crown,
lesseo sought to obtain an advantage. Thus, the uvo.
measured portions in the present action must be keyti
| entirely distinct from each other, and improvement j
j to the extent of £40 would have to bo shown upou <
! each. It had been proved tbat tho defendant, Misb
i Annie Smith was " a. person capable of selecting andl
j holding" for herself, as she was 10 years of nge»
before she selected tho land# T h» witnceees on both,
sides differed widely as to the valre of tho improve-
I ments, but thoy were unanimous in affirming that the?
| fencing was of Buch a kind as wonld not now have
been put up. According to the ovidenco of the
plaintiff's manager, the fence was >vortb about £4o a
mile in 1870, while Mr. M'Pherson, for the defence,
declared that its valuo in that year was about i30.
Tt was unreasonable to tako the mean va.ne, as bad
been suggested ; and with regard to tho tank, ah tho
witnesses said that tho ground in which it bad been
Bunk was of a very porous nature.
Tho jury retired at 2 p.m., and after about ba»f<au«
JURY COURT.— Monday, June 19.
(Before Sir George Innes and a Jury of Four.)
SQUATTER v. SELECTOR.
Moore v. Smith.— Mr. Pilcher and Mr. Cohen, in-
structed by Mr. S. C. Brown, appeared for the plain-
tiff, and Mr. Rogers and Dr. Donovan, instructed by
Messrs. Holdsworlh and Evans, appeared for the de-
fendant. The trial of this action begun on Thursday
morning. The nominal plaintiff was Mr. Frederick
Henry Moore, proprietor of the Tubbo Station, in the
Murrumbidgee district; and for the benefit of the
estate, he sued the defendant, Miss Annie Smith, a
minor (who had selected upon his run), for £500
damages for trespass. By consent, the issues were
reduced to the question as to the title of the plaintiff
to recover compensation. For the plaintiff it was
alleged that, for some time before the defendant ap-
plied for the selections and took them up, the plaintiff
had placed improvements upon certain "measured
portions," and as the value of those improvements
amounted to more than £40 upon each portion, the
portions were, by Act of Parliament, excluded by
selection. The Crown tenant, by virtue of the im-
provements, applied to purchase the portions in July,
1878, and the selector did not come upon the ground
until 18 months afterwards.
Mr. Rogers, who began his argument for the
He desired to observe that, when he referred on
Friday to the decisions of the Supremo Court, in
regard to the land laws, he meant no disrespect to the
Court. The Legislature had intended that £1 should
be expected in the improvement of each acre of land,
but in these actions against the unfortunate selectors
the Court had been driven to give decisions upon
the present action, he hoped the jury would remember
that on the one side were the employees of the
clined towards the squatter. But he was willing to
admit that the witnesses for the defendant — chiefly
selectors, insensibly favoured the defendant. All
these witnesses said that the fencing was utterly
useless, and that a tank which had been sunk at
water, being intended merely to act as a scarecrow to
evidence of Mr. M'Pherson, a licensed surveyor for
for the Government to inquire into the claim of the
provements. That gentlemen had asserted that the
east and west fence upon the measured portions, and
the tank already referred to, were not improvements.
The plaintiff, besides, had placed the improvements
upon the land shortly before the land was measured,
when they must have known that it was about to be
selected. He thought that if Mr. Peters, original owner
of the station had been still alive, the court would
not have seen this action, which had been brought by
that gentleman's executors. An honest squatter did
not want to turn away a diligent tiller of the soil,
stealer and a nuisance to the district. The action
must have been brought from some sense of duty
which the testator, if he had been alive, would not
have approved of.
Mr. Pilcher, in addressing the jury for the plaintiff,
pointed out that the counsel for the defendant, had
indulged in a violent appeal to the sympathies of the
jury, and had designated the class to which the
plaintiff belonged as the most detestable race of
men upon earth. It was true that the gentleman
behalf of his legatees, who resided in the colony.
The real explanation was, that Mr. James Smith, the
defendant's father, was trying to gather a large es-
tate for himself and his family, and by taking various
vantage, which would not have accrued to him had
he selected in his own name. The feeling of an-
tagonism between selectors and squatters was fast
dying out in the rural districts, and he was confident
that in nine-tenths of the country neither side sympa-
thised with such hostile arguments as had been
adduced against both classes of settlers. The
wool producers who had been held up to execration
were an estimable body of people, and had in hard
times enabled the colony to tide over many difficul-
ties. The selectors were an equally worthy class, and
the time was approaching when they would be more
powerful in the country than the squatters. The
proper way to settle this dispute was to take the
mean between the valuations of the two sides. The
whole run had been fenced in, tanks had been sunk
in it, and it had been subdivided. Seventeen months
before Mr. James Smith selected upon it, the plaintiff
had made application concerning the piece of land
in question. showing that he firmly believed that he
was entitled to purchase it. The application was under
Office, when Mr. Smith applied for the land on his
daughter's behalf. The plaintiff's witnessed assessed
the original cost of the fence at from £40 to £60
a mile; while the valuation of the defendant's wit-
nesses ranged from £32 10s to £40 a mile. In refer
ence to the tank, the evidence showed that it had cost
£58, and the contractor had to throw up the work, as
he found that the ground was too hard for sinking.
If the tank did not hold water the drains which led
to it must have been in disorder.
His Honor, in summing up, said that a number of
both sides were altogether apart from the question.
The law had to be administered as the Court found
it, and in the present case the issues for the jury were
very simple, the question being whether in December,
1879, improvements of the valno of £40 had been
made upon each of the two measured portions. The
law in reference to these measured portions was pecu
liar, inasmuch as it strongly favoured the Crown lessees.
But it was clear that the improvement must eo upon
the particular measured portion for which the Crown
lessee sought to obtain an advantage. Thus, the two
measured portions in the present action must be kept
entirely distinct from each other, and improvements
jto the extent of £40 would have to be shown upon
each. It had been proved tbat the defendant, Miss
holding" for herself, as she was 10 years of age
before she selected the land. The witnesses on both
sides differed widely as to the value of the improve-
ments, but they were unanimous in affirming that the
fencing was of such a kind as would not now have
been put up. According to the evidence of the
plaintiff's manager, the fence was worth about £45 a
mile in 1879, while Mr. M'Pherson, for the defence,
declared that its value in that year was about £30.
It was unreasonable to take the mean value, as had
been suggested; and with regard to the tank, all the
witnesses said that the ground in which it had been
sunk was of a very porous nature.
The jury retired at 2 p.m., and after about half-an-
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT-MONDAY, JUNE 19. SITTINGS FOR CAUSES. Banco Court.—(Before his Honor Mr. Justice FAUCETT and a jury of four.) ARMSTRONG V. KING. (Article), The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Tuesday 20 June 1882 [Issue No.13,798] page 7 2019-11-17 06:19 ' v oour v ¡SMITH (AWIE).
Mr Pilcher uud Mr Cohen, instructed by "Mr: *S7 CÎ
Biowu, tor tbo pluintift , Mr Rogers and Dr Donovan,
¡ instructed by Mossis Holdsworth and Evana, for th*
defendant
lhopluntiff, who represents tho owners of Tubbo run,
I hu )),s thin action for tri sp ,«.«es to measured portions. Nos
70 und 71 of 22l± and 320 acres respectively Tho defen-
dant Auuio «smith now 19 vears ot age, justifies under a
condition ti purehii-io of theso two selections mado by
hit in December, 1879 Iho plaintiff's case is that thil
sclccti m w is inv tlid, beeattso each of theso portion«
wu«, ut the d iii of the c ¡nditional purchnse, improved to an
t vi cn I i r-«aici th m £10 It appears from tho ulans used a(
tbu tiul thit th me isuied portions adjoin each other, and
, luivo us their southern bound try a road a chain wido, ant}
i limning cast und west, iNo 70 has a frontage ol
10 i hams to this roid, No 71 has a frontage;
' ot 71) c hains to tho same load, on tho opposite
oi southern side of th it road and opposite to No 70 and parí,
oí No 71 uro two measuied poitions, Nos 59 and COI
which uro tho «-elections of John Smith, the defendant'!
btolhei I ho e portions woro tho subject of al
Kctiou Let»», u tho present plaintiff and John Smits|
and his fail) r Tunes Smith, tried last November*
J unes "ttmtli b is 1)000 shcpp which he runs over Nos f)9(
ü() 70, and 71 Defendant has no sheep Tho improve*
liienis, which the pi ttntill says prevented Nos 70 and 71
trom bpingsclo led, nie two lines of fencing foroung part
of the station subdiv îsiou and a tank One line of fencing;
runs oust aud west through tho breadth of No. 70 (40
a distaueo of about 5 chains from tho toad
the southern boundary of Nos 70 and 71. The othei
lino of fencing ruus norlh and south through the middle of
iNo 70 20 chaius from the eastern boundary of that portion»
and is o9 chains long 1 hese two fences necessarily meet ii
No 70, and fence off a rectangular piece of ground at th(
S L comer ot No 70, meaauung 20 chains by 5 chains
In this rectanfculir puco ot ground is the tanlq
lhe fence was erected in lSbG und is a five and BIX wiri
fence of Nos 6 and b wire, three feet high , posts of split
pine, 14 or 15 feet apait, with two braces to each panel, lhl
onginul c ist of the fonce was estimated by different wit-
nesses ut f rom £39 to LüO annie The country is a sheen
countr> Witnesses for the plaintiff and the détendant dif
ieicd as to the condition and value of the fences in 1879, w hoi
the defendant made her hcleetinu The tunk is a shallow
one, estimated to cont un from 700 to 1000 yards of excava«
tion, and to have cost from Is to Is ¿d a yard Witnessel
tor the plaintiff and defendant gave diflerent opinions ni
te its usefulness, some considered it a good tank, whill
others thought it too shallow, and eaid that it would not
hold water
Mi Pilcher, on behalf of tho plaintiff, contended that
the value of tho iniprovcmonts on each of the measured
portions was greatir than ¿40 Ho submitted that, in esti-
mating the value of tho foncing and tho tank, the jury could
tako into considérât lou that Nos. 59 and 60 were
useu by John Smith, tho defendant's fither in con
Htetiou with Noa 70 and 71 for tho depasturing of
his sheep, and that tho defendant had no sheep of her
own He also contended that if the jury should find that
the value of the uupiovements on eititor measuied portion
ote ceded HO, then such improvements would prevent the
doleudant from making a conditional purchase of both by
ouo selix tion.
Ilia HONOR ruled against him on both points, holding
that tin value of the improvements was tho valuo to tin
ownt r ot the SBlccti m, and that the plaintiff could onlj
roa vc r in respect of u meusurod poi tion which contained
improvements to the e -vtcut of £10.
Veidiet tor the defenduut as to both measured portions
MOORE v SMITH (ANNIE).
Mr Pilcher and Mr Cohen, instructed by Mr. S. C.
Brown, for the plaintiff, Mr Rogers and Dr Donovan,
instructed by Messrs Holdsworth and Evans, for the
defendant.
The plaintiff, who represents the owners of Tubbo run,
Ibrings this action for trespass to measured portions, Nos.
70 and 71 of 221¼ and 320 acres respectively. The defen-
dant Annie Smith, now 19 vears ot age, justifies under a
conditional purchase of these two selections made by
her in December, 1879. The plaintiff's case is that this
selection was invalid, because each of these portions
was, at the date of the conditional purchase, improved to an
extent greater that £40. It appears from the plans used at
the trial tht the measured portions adjoin each other, and
having as their southern boundary a road a chain wide, and
running east and west; No. 70 has a frontage of
40 chains to this road; No. 71 has a frontage of
78 chains to the same road; on the opposite
of southern side of that road and opposite to No. 70 and part
of No. 71 are two measuied poitions, Nos. 59 and 60,
which are the selections of John Smith, the defendant's
brother. The portions were the subject of an
action between the present plaintiff and John Smith
and his father James Smith, tried last November.
James Smoth has 5000 sheep which he runs over Nos. 59,
60, 70, and 71. Defendant has no sheep. The improve-
ments, which the plaintiff says prevented Nos 70 and 71
from being selected, are two lines of fencing forming part
of the station subdivîsion and a tank. One line of fencing
runs east aud west through the breadth of No. 70 (40
a distance of about 5 chains from the road
the southern boundary of Nos. 70 and 71. The other
line of fencing runs norlh and south through the middle of
No 70, 20 chains from the eastern boundary of that portion
and is 59 chains long. These two fences necessarily meet is
No 70. and fence off a rectangular piece of ground at the
S.E. comer of No 70, meaauung 20 chains by 5 chains.
In this rectangular piece of ground is the tank.
The fence was erected in 1866 and is a five and six wire
fence of Nos. 6 and 8 wire, three feet high; posts of split
pine, 14 or 15 feet apart, with two braces to each panel. The
onginal cost of the fence was estimated by different wit-
nesses at from £39 to £60 a mile. The country is a sheep
country. Witnesses for the plaintiff and the defendant dif
fered as to the condition and value of the fences in 1879, when
the defendant made her selection. The tank is a shallow
one, estimated to contain from 700 to 1000 yards of excava
tion, and to have cost from 1 to 1s 3d a yard. Witnesses
for the plaintiff and defendant gave diflerent opinions as
to its usefulness, some considered it a good tank, whilst
others thought it too shallow, and said that it would not
hold water.
Mr. Pilcher, on behalf of the plaintiff, contended that
the value of the improvements on each of the measured
portions was greater than £40. He submitted that, in esti-
mating the value of the fencing and the tank, the jury could
take into consideration that Nos. 59 and 60 were
used by John Smith, the defendant's father in con
nection with Nos. 70 and 71 for the depasturing of
his sheep, and that the defendant had no sheep of her
own. He also contended that if the jury should find that
the value of the improvements on either measured portion
exceceded £40, then such improvements would prevent the
defendant from making a conditional purchase of both by
one selection.
His HONOR ruled against him on both points, holding
that the value of the improvements was the value to the
owner of the selection, and that the plaintiff could only
recover in respect of a meusurod portion which contained
improvements to the extent of £40.
Verdict for the defendant as to both measured portions.
STOCK REPORTS. RIVERINE GRAZIER Office. Saturday, April 29. (Article), The Riverine Grazier (Hay, NSW : 1873 - 1954), Saturday 29 April 1882 [Issue No.690] page 2 2019-11-16 21:11 our Wednesday's report. The oxecutora of the lato
Mr. J, Peters, of Tubbo, have purchased Mr, 'W aid*
ren's estate on Argoon, 1800 acres. . Tho Wnllan
dcrry station, on Cooper's Creek, with 5000 cattle,
our Wednesday's report. The executors of the late
Mr. J. Peters, of Tubbo, have purchased Mr. W. Wald-
ren's estate on Argoon, 1800 acres. The Wallan-
derry station, on Cooper's Creek, with 5000 cattle,
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6. (Article), The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Wednesday 7 December 1881 [Issue No.13,631] page 2 2019-11-16 20:50 Mr MELHONEsaid ho thought the hon member was
was going to tako (Cheois) Ho desired to draw tho
attention of the House to u mattor of great import
ÎÎ0 Ho decisions had Intel) boen given by
Tr Justt o Vindo) er, in tho Supiomn Comt, and ho
uesircu to know what action tho Government intended
w take vnthreguid to thom Ile WIIB quite sure that the
«ou«o had nov or intended to pass a 1 iw such as had been
'nteiprotedb) Mr YVmdoyor Iho circumstances to which
ne referred iroso out of two cises which wero heard in tho
oupremo Court before Mr Justice Windeyer lhe first
ono was heard on the 10th August and the parties
weie I carson v Sttphen Pearson, a Crown lessee bought
a largo run ou the I aehlan, and to secure himself from
adec,,0"J,eot 80mo of his men to tal o up selections, and he
aavnnced the mouoy, leeemng their piomissory-notes in
« An When tho notes betaino due thuv wore not mot,
»"I 1 carson obtained a verdict by default He then
Claimed tho land, but tho Minister of Lands decided that
ne Mali not hold it Pearson then brought tho action in
""» Superno fnint n.jinst <sr«phnn »"d Mr Win
doyor decided that whcro 010 acres of land had
boon measured, and improvements to tho extent of
£10 hnd been made upon it-not where thej could bo con-
doreel into di) ne res, but whom the y vu ro scattonsl nil over
tho 6-10 acres-the lund was debt m I from rob "(um iho
next was a caso in vvhieh thn luíste i. i I tin I ii Mr Peters
claimed scloi dons biki ti uti bl i mu i mud ! c itiiiolili in
virtue of improvements Iho so! dor > rub slid i^iuist
their claim nnd the nutter w is n u mil'o ti t Mnustn for
I.ntids for his derision Mr M'l'he rsim, of the cb pirtnient,
appraised tho value of the improvement * nt betwts ti _G0
nnd £70. Upon this tho lessee, took iction, and sued
Bernholdt for trespass and tho result was thxt be obtaiiie d
n verdict for £2, which onrried costs 1 his dnemon enine
upon the countrx like a thundercl ip It meant that Ibu
law was now Ihis -A lesseo got a lot of theso bloe ks
measured, ho ringlnrkid the country , nnd according to the
Act lntolj passed got '« td un leiousthi \nluoof lint
improvement lor GIO ni ros tbnt would be ilO Ibis
would etlectunllj block nnv iel (turn and bo w is sur"
that the llmi-o nevei intern1 <1 tint this should
bo tho liw Since this le MIHI had becmio l-nown
n Inrtro nuinbir of se loe Ins lind n enid notico of
notion nil over tho ooloix for tr spi>s on those 1 mels, and ho
going to law about them lins man Bernholdt had not tho
means of appealing (o tho "supreme Court, and as tho
tnattni was of such great public linoorlnme, he would Iiko
to know what the Government woro going to do If this
tniin bad to bo at the loss of his selections people would
bo nfnud to take up land Iln thought it w is the bounden
duty of the Government to tr\ tins matter m the Supremo
Court, and if thej woie beaten there the v ought to go to the
Privy Council, If tho lnw woio as Inid down bv Mr
Justice Windeyer, tho Government should not delay ono
hour m tnking steps to havo it altered
Mr HOSKINS stud that the lion m»mi or Mr
M'Hhono, had told lum yosterlav (hat bo intended
to bring tho mutter before the House nnd ho ejtiito
agreed with him that the mntter was one ot greal
importance Ho mii,ht remark tint when he read tho
report of the tnnl Mooro v Bomb/lilt in tho Jhrali! m
biiturdnj morning h i reforred to the Chief CommishioL r
of Conditional Purehnsea (Mr Mon irtv) on the subnet
Ho made these rcmurks to show that tho matter did uot
escapo his attention Ho told Mr M'Flhono that he wns
moving in tho mittor Iho lion member had
modo this mistake, he thought Ho bud told
tho House thnt Mr Justice Windejer had given
two decisions in this and another caso He hid given
no decisions at all thev were simply directions to the jurj
A formal decision h id never jet been iriven bj our Supreme
Court, but ho thought one ought to be taken Ho did not
think it necessarj to refer to Stephen's cast» and he did not
intend to go into tho matter of uni Dvcments but Justice
jury, without nnj reason being ¡,ivcn for tho opinion, that if
a portion of measured] ind was improved to tho valueof £10
without anv ragnrd to tho arem, that that land was exempt
from conditional purohnse If an objection wero mndc ton
person taking up 1 ind bv conditional pure huso on account of
tho lund ho applied for being imorov ed, thon an nppiiuso
mont was made of the vilunof tho improvements, and if
they represented a pound an aero m value thej exempted
a proportionate area from conditional purclnt-o But the
conditional purchaser might tako tho balance of tho
measured portion if the lard by pnjingthe subdivision
fee, provided the Mi lister approved of tho subdivision
That had boon the practice ]of tho Depart mont up to the
present timo fHcnr hear) Well, they were led to
measured portion of land consisting of s i> 110 acres wns
pointed ont, and if there woro Improvements of the xnluo
of £40, tho whole of such 640 acres would bo exempt
from freo selection Tho Judge had directed that if
there woro improvements of the vnluo of £10 on a
measured portion of land-no matter how IUTLO tint portion
might be-it was exempted from condition ii puichaso He
could only say that such a dictum was ontirelj atxannnco
with the modo in which the Innd laws had been adminis-
w_ entirely at variance with tho principles embodied
m tho Land Act of 1801 and the land Act of
1875 Mr Justice Windeyor justified his directions
by a decision given bv the Full Court m the ense
of Blackwood \ Dobbin, which was brought before
fhoir Honors Sir James Mnrtm, Mr Justtco 1 aucett and
Sir William Manning but thoredid not seem tobeanjthmg
m that judgment which would justify Mr Justice "N mdpj cr
in giving the direction he had According to tho Land let,
land to be considered te have been Icgnllv improved must
have had improvements effected upon it of tho vnluo of £1
per acre, but Justice Windoj er appeared to have taken a
different view of the case of Moore v Bernholdt Ho had
a book on the Lands Acts of Is civ South Wales, by J L
Watkins,btrnster-at law, from which he would quote the
point laid down by tho Pull Court in the caso just mentioned
selected, neither can nny part of tho block, although such
part contains none of the improvements, he selected without
the approval of tho Minister And it makes no difference
that the land on which the improv omonts have boen placed
bv a pastoral lessee is a reserve Fencing is such an im-
provement aa bars selection " That was what the law said
and that was what the Department said N on, he would take
the liberty of quoting two or three clauses of tho Land Act,
m order to show upon what grounds tho department admi-
nistered the land law Although their mode was opposed to
tho doctrine laid down by Jndge AVindovor, ho thought that
hon members would seo that the department bad good
grounds for adopting the courso thoy had In tho 13th
section of the Crown Lands Alienation Act of 18G1 it was
monts should be open for conditional sale by selection In
order to know what was meant by tho word improve-
ments, ho would turn to the interpretation clause of
the same \et, which defined "improvements" to mean
"improvements on Crown lands or lands conditionallx sold
to the value, to lie determined by appmsement if disputed
m town and suburban lands, of not loss than twice tho upset
price of the allotment or portion on which tho improve-
ments may stand, and on other lands of not le°s than the
unimprowl value of the lands, to bo in like manner deter-
mined, not being less than £1 per aero," In the
faco of that, how on earth could anybodv hold that land
was improved land under the law ( And there were
the Land Act as it was effected by the Department of Lands
The 5th clause of the Lands Acts Amendment Act of 1S75
was to the following effect -" No improvements on any
Crown lands shall oxompt such lands from conditi »nal sale
or pre-emptn e lease unless such improvements shull bo of
the value of £40 but subject thereto improvements
exemption if they shall ho of tho value (to bo deter-
mined by appraisement if disputed) of 20s per acre '
That meant that land not unproved to tho ex-
tent of 20s por acre would bo open to conditional
purchase so that all land improved to the oxtout of 20s per
acre would be exempt from conditional purchase I he 5th
clause and the interpretation clause of the Act of 1SG1 dis-
tinctly provided that land to bo regarded as improved, must
bo improved to the extent of £1 per acre The lGth
danse of the Lands Act Amendment Act of 187Ä, provided
measured as aforesaid by tho authority of tho Go-
vernment, shall be improved to the extent ot not
less than £10 the residue of such measured portion,
conditional purchase bo held to be Crown lands, and as such
open to conditional purchnso in tho Birnie way as other Crown
lands, if tho Mimatei shall approve such purchase, and any
person who shall conditionally purchnso tho said residue
shall pay the cost of subdivision " Ho hud had a caso pre
pired for his colleague tho Attorney General with regard to
the trial of Bernholdt Ho regarded that matter as of
so much importance that ho tolt it to bo his dutv
to leaxo no stone unturned, and to ask the
Government to tako such a courso as they deemed desirable
to prevent what ho considered was a most unwarrantable
attompt to thwart tho settlement of this colony Iho
member for tho Upucr Hunter hud clearly stated the case
After Mr M'Pherson lind given his appraisement, a Govern-
ment surveyor hnd tal en sumo pait in connection with the
land, and for which ho would be c tiled upon to account.
Mr LYNE thought that tho Ministor hld takon a proper
course, and was entitled to tho thanks of all hon ruemhors
for having done so
Mr LEVIEN must cortamly compliment tho Minister
for Lands for tho course ho intended toudoutvuth respect to
a matter which was of tho greatest unpoi tunee to tho whole
of the colony At tho same timo, ho had taken advantage
matter-to explain what ho would have done in roferenco
to the extension of the Great Northern Railway had ho boen
in tho House tho other night Tho member for tho Wol-
Mr M'ELHONEsaid ho thought the hon member was
was going to tako (Cheois) He desired to draw the
attention of the House to a matter of great import
ance. Two decisions had lately been given by
Mr. Justice Windeyer, in the Supreme Court, and he
desired to know what action the Government intended
to take with regard to them. He was quite sure that the
House had never intended to pass a law such as had been
'interpreted by Mr. Windeyer. The circumstances to which
he referred arose out of two cases which were heard in the
Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Windeyer The first
one was heard on the 10th August and the parties
were Pearson v Stephen. Pearson, a Crown lessee bought
a large run on the Lachlan, and to secure himself from
selectors got some of his men to take up selections, and he
advanced the money, receiving their promissory-notes in
return. When the notes became due they were not met,
and Pearson obtained a verdict by default. He then
claimed the land, but the Minister of Lands decided that
he could not hold it. Pearson then brought the action in
the Supreme Court against Stephen and Mr. Win-
deyer decided that where 640 acres of land had
been measured, and improvements to the extent of
£10 had been made upon it - not where they could be con-
densed into 40 acres, but wher3 they were scattered all over
the 640 acres - the land was debarred from selection. The
next was a case in which the trustree of the late Mr. Peter
claimed selections taken up by a man named Bernholdt, in
virtue of improvements. The selector protested against
their claimannd the matter was referred to the Minister for
Lands for his decision. Mr. M'Pherson, of the department,
appraised the value of the improvements at between £60
and £70. Upon this the lessee took action, and sued
Bernholdt for trespass and the result was that he obtained
a verdict for £2, which carried costs. This decision came
upon the country like a thunderclap. It meant that the
law was now this:- A lessee got a lot of these blocks
measured, he ringbarked the country,annd according to the
Act latley passed, got 1s 3d. an acre as the value of that
improvement. For 640 acres that would be £10. This
would effectually block any selection; and he was sure
that the House never intended that this should
be the law. Since thisdecision had become known
a large number of selections had received notice of
action all over the colony for trespass on these lands, and he
going to law about them. This man Bernholdt had not the
means of appealing to the Supreme Court, and as teo
matter was of such great public importance, he would Iike
to know what the Government were going to do. If this
man had to be at the loss of his selections people would
be afraid to take up land. He thought it was the bounden
duty of the Government to try this matter in the Supreme
Court, and if they were beaten there they ought to go to the
Privy Council. If the law were as Iaid down by Mr.
Justice Windeyer, the Government should not delay one
hour in taking steps to have it altered
Mr HOSKINS said that the hon. member, Mr
M'Elhone, had told him yesterday that he intended
to bring the matter before the House, and he quite
agreed with him that the matter was one of greal
importance, He might remark that when he read the
report of the trial Moore v Bernholdt in the Herald on
Saturday morning, he referred to the Chief Commisioner
of Conditional Purchases (Mr. Moriarty) on the subject.
He made these remarks to show that the matter did not
escape his attention. Hetold Mr M'Elhone that he was
moving in the matter. The hon. member had
made this mistake, he thought. He had told
the House that Mr. Justice Windeyer had given
two decisions in this and another case. He had given
no decisions at all; they were simply directions to the jury.
A formal decision had never yet been given by our Supreme
Court, but he thought one ought to be taken. He did not
think it necessary to refer to Stephen's case, and he did not
intend to go into the matter of improvements; but Justice
jury, without any reason being given for the opinion, that if
a portion of measured land was improved to the valueof £40
without any regard to the area, that that land was exempt
from conditional purchase. If an objection were made to
person taking up land by conditional purchase on account of
the land he applied for being improved, then an appraise-
ment was made of the value of the improvements, and if
they represented a pound an acre in value they exempted
a proportionate area from conditional purchase. But the
conditional purchaser might take the balance of the
measured portion of the land by paying the subdivision
fee, provided the Minister approved of the subdivision.
That had been the practice of the Department up to the
present time. (Hear, hear.) Well, they were led to
measured portion of land consisting of say 640 acres was
pointed out, and if there were improvements of the value
of £40, the whole of such 640 acres would be exempt
from free selection. The Judge had directed that if
there were improvements of the value of £40 on a
measured portion of land - no matter how large that portion
might be - it was exempted from conditional purchase. He
could only say that such a dictum was entirely at variance
with the mode in which the Iand laws had been adminis-
was entirely at variance with the principles embodied
in the Land Act of 1861 and the land Act of
1875. Mr. Justice Windeyer justified his directions
by a decision given by the Full Court in the case
of Blackwood v. Dobbin, which was brought before
their Honors Sir James Martin, Mr Justice Faucett and
Sir William Manning; but there did not seem to be anything
in that judgment which would justify Mr. Justice Windeyer
in giving the direction he had. According to the Land Act,
land to be considered to have been Iegally improved must
have had improvements effected upon it of the value of £1
per acre, but Justice Windeyer appeared to have taken a
different view of the case of Moore v Bernholdt. He had
a book on the Lands Acts of New South Wales, by J. L.
Watkins, barrister-at-law, from which he would quote the
point laid down by the Full Court in the case just mentioned.
selected, neither can any part of the block, although such
part contains none of the improvements, be selected without
the approval of the Minister. And it makes no difference
that the land on which the improvements have been placed
by a pastoral lessee is a reserve. Fencing is such an im-
provement as bars selection." That was what the law said
and that was what the Department said. Now, he would take
the liberty of quoting two or three clauses of the Land Act,
in order to show upon what grounds the department admi-
nistered the land law. Although their mode was opposed to
the doctrine laid down by Judge Windeyer, he thought that
hon. members would see that the department had good
grounds for adopting the course they had. In the 13th
section of the Crown Lands Alienation Act of 1861 it was
provided that certain lands which did not contain improve-
ments should be open for conditional sale by selection. In
order to know what was meant by the word improve-
ments, he would turn to the interpretation clause of
the same Act, which defined "improvements" to mean
"improvements on Crown lands or lands conditionally sold
to the value, to be determined by appraisement if disputed
in town and suburban lands, of not less than twice the upset
price of the allotment or portion on which the improve-
ments may stand, and on other lands of not less than the
unimproved value of the lands, to be in like manner deter-
mined, not being less than £1 per acre." In the
face of that, how on earth could anybody hold that land
was improved land under the law? And there were
the Land Act as it was effected by the Department of Lands.
The 5th clause of the Lands Acts Amendment Act of 1875
was to the following effect:- "No improvements on any
Crown lands shall exempt such lands from conditional sale
or pre-emptive lease unless such improvements shall be of
the value of £40, but subject thereto improvements
exemption if they shall be of the value (to bo deter-
mined by appraisement if disputed) of 20s per acre."
That meant that land not unproved to the ex-
tent of 20s per acre would be open to conditional
purchase so that all land improved to the extent of 20s per
acre would be exempt from conditional purchase. The 5th
clause and the interpretation clause of the Act of 1861 dis-
tinctly provided that land to be regarded as improved, must
be improved to the extent of £1 per acre. The 16th
clause of the Lands Act Amendment Act of 1875, provided
measured as aforesaid by the authority of the Go-
vernment, shall be improved to the extent of not
less than £40 the residue of such measured portion,
conditional purchase be held to be Crown lands, and as such
open to conditional purchase in the same way as other Crown
lands, if the Minister shall approve such purchase, and any
person who shall conditionally purchase the said residue
shall pay the cost of subdivision." He had had a case pre
pared for his colleague the Attorney-General with regard to
the trial of Bernholdt. He regarded that matter as of
so much importance that he felt it to be his duty
to leave no stone unturned, and to ask the
Government to take such a course as they deemed desirable
to prevent what he considered was a most unwarrantable
attempt to thwart the settlement of this colony. The
member for the Upper Hunter had clearly stated the case.
After Mr M'Pherson had given his appraisement, a Govern-
ment surveyor had taken some part in connection with the
land, and for which he would be called upon to account.
Mr LYNE thought that the Ministor had taken a proper
course, and was entitled to the thanks of all hon. members
for having done so.
Mr LEVIEN must certainly compliment the Minister
for Lands for the course he intended to adopt with respect to
a matter which was of the greatest importance to the whole
of the colony. At the same time, he had taken advantage
matter - to explain what he would have done in reference
to the extension of the Great Northern Railway had he been
in the House the other night. The member for the Wol-
LAW REPORT. SUPREME COURT.—FRIDAY, DECEMBER 2. Banco Court.—(Before his Honor the CHIEF JUSTICE and a jury of four.) [?]BRYDON v. HOLT. (Article), The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Saturday 3 December 1881 [Issue No.13,628] page 7 2019-11-15 06:05 MOORE V. TlEUIlOLUT.
Stephen, instructed by Mr. S. C. Brown, appeared for tbe
Messrs. Holdsworth and Evans, appeared for the defondant.
This was an action brought by the administrator of tho
Tho plaintiff's case was that tho defendant selected a
measured portion, improved to a valuo greater than £10.
Ihe lund was originally measured in 1860, and contained
460 acres; the area was subsequent!}' enlarged to 610
acres. A volunteer land order was placed on tho land,
and a subdivision was made on 17th June, 1SS0, taking 50
acres out of tho block for the holder of tho lund order.
This ¡30 acres was taken in a Btrip in the middle of the
acres. Ibis subdivision was disapproved by the Minister
after October 31, 1881. tho time when this action
was brought. A key pinn, a compilation from original
plans, êhoiving the measured portioD, and signed by a Mr.
Willie, wits put iu evidence. There, was evideuco that
sovoral persons wero appointed by the Minister to sign
thut Willis was ono of these. He wa3 appointed to sign
county niups.
was a. cfibe of trespass to lund included iü a selection made
was entitled to this lund, 'i'heio was evidence that the lund
was a nieuiurcd portion. It was surveyed, and pogs put
down, and in the county plan it waa marked as a measured
portion. It improvements of n value of £10 wero placed
on a measured portion the urta could not bo selected. One
of the alleged improvements wus n bridge, but unless it was
upon the lund it was notaa improvement, although thcplaiu
titf had put it up. If the jury came to the conclusion that
the bridge was in the creek and not ou the land, it would
not protect the land from selection. It wus said that tho
bridge was not put up to impiove the land; but on the
other hand tho plaintiff evidence went to show that at tho
timo it was built the plaintiff's believed that the lund was
his own ; it WSB also said that tho vnluo was moro than
£100. As to tho other improvements there was a conflict of
evidence The plaintiff gave evidence that £197 bud been
yard, and that this expenditure was au improvement of
considerably moro than £ 10. This evidence was not contra-
dicted. It was admitted that the ringbarkirijc done on the 610
would cost 1B. Sd. au acre. This would como to more than £40.
The law allowed ringbarking. Tho defendant's witnesses,
on the other hand, say that it was a dieadvantago, but the
neighbourhood. And tho plaintiff said that the ring
barking aud other imptovements were done when the
specially whether there wero £10 worth of improvements on
dio 320 acres "W. of tho land taken by the volunteer land
order, and whether there woro £40 of improvements on the
270 acros.
a verdict for tho plaintiff with damages 40s. They found
specially that tho improvements on each of the 820 and 270
acres were of a greator voluo than £40.
MOORE V. BERHOLDT.
Stephen, instructed by Mr. S. C. Brown, appeared for the
Messrs. Holdsworth and Evans, appeared for the defendant.
This was an action brought by the administrator of the
The plaintiff's case was that the defendant selected a
measured portion, improved to a value greater than £40.
Ihe land was originally measured in 1866, and contained
460 acres; the area was subsequently enlarged to 640
acres. A volunteer land order was placed on the land,
and a subdivision was made on 17th June, 1880, taking 50
acres out of the block for the holder of the land order.
This 50 acres was taken in a strip in the middle of the
acres. This subdivision was disapproved by the Minister
after October 31, 1881. the time when this action
was brought. A key plan, a compilation from original
plans, showing the measured portion, and signed by a Mr.
Willis, was put in evidence. There was evidence that
several persons were appointed by the Minister to sign
that Willis was one of these. He was appointed to sign
county maps..
was a case of trespass to land included in a selection made
was entitled to this land. There was evidence that the land
was a measured portion. It was surveyed, and pegs put
down, and in the county plan it was marked as a measured
portion. If improvements of a value of £40 were placed
on a measured portion the area could not be selected. One
of the alleged improvements was a bridge, but unless it was
upon the land it was not an improvement, although the plain
tiff had put it up. If the jury came to the conclusion that
the bridge was in the creek and not on the land, it would
not protect the land from selection. It was said that the
bridge was not put up to improve the land; but on the
other hand the plaintiff evidence went to show that at the
time it was built the plaintiff's believed that the land was
his own; it was also said that the value was more than
£100. As to the other improvements there was a conflict of
evidence. The plaintiff gave evidence that £197 had been
yard, and that this expenditure was an improvement of
considerably more than £40. This evidence was not contra-
dicted. It was admitted that the ringbarking done on the 640
would cost 1s. 8d. an acre. This would come to more than £40.
The law allowed ringbarking. The defendant's witnesses,
on the other hand, say that it was a disadvantago, but the
neighbourhood. And the plaintiff said that the ring
barking and other improvements were done when the
specially whether there were £40 worth of improvements on
the 320 acres W. of the land taken by the volunteer land
order, and whether there were £40 of improvements on the
270 acres.
a verdict for the plaintiff with damages 40s. They found
specially that the improvements on each of the 320 and 270
acres were of a greater value than £40.
LAW REPORT. SUPRE[?]EE COURT. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30. Banco Court.(Befor his Hinor the CHIEF JUSTICE and a jury of four.) DALEY V. WATSON AND ANOTHER. (Article), The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Thursday 1 December 1881 [Issue No.13,626] page 9 2019-11-15 05:45 Juiij\Cùuit--ÇBcfa>i. nts Honor Tti Justice Wrs.D_i.rtt
and a JUI y of foin )
MOMIE A JOHN SMITH
x oom x j vu s aun 11
The lAsarme; ot those actions was resumed
Bt consent (hi so two ncttons wero tried together
Mt Darloy, Q 1 , and Ali C 15 Stephen, instructed bv
Mi Brennan, for tho pi untitf , Mt Rogéis and Dr
Donovan, jnslruetel bv Mossis Holdsworth and Evans,
npiH ired for the dt f ne! mis
ihcsnA.cn} a tioiisif trcspiss to the 1 ubi 0 Run, near
Nan m 1er" Tho 1 lion ne, tinst John Smith vv n brought
to tiy the right to «tic tiors m_l-> by lum of mcitauiej po -
tu ns )0 and 00, eidi ennt lining J2Ü n íes, und ne. mist bim
tue jilunt ft onlt nsked for minimi dunn- s lho action
against Jumes smith, the fttbor of J ihn bun th, tvusfrr
tiisprssos by his uheep io d10 "-uno land, md uftiust him
the jil untiL asi til for sub I itituil dum ire
ihe plaintiff wis the nduunistiat ir with the will anne ed
of the est tto of John Peter, the omcrot tbo run lho
mun point lu contest wau whithu d10 me isured portions
bid been îmuroved to 11 value "rcater Ih in _i0
His IIoxoil, in tho courso of summ tig up, said th t tho
plutnttfl had brought these actions against John Simla mid
ílso iip-unst lames smith, fir alleged tro pt ses on tubbo
lho deo nennst the young man, John Sun h, tv is th it be
had tukm np two iieasiired portions of ¿20 acres
eieh It ivis ausvvercd that at the limo tina lum1
1 11s rclccted there nero lmprot enients to the
1 Uno of £10 on ouo of theso moi-uu ed portions
i With regard to the other portion, it app nica to his Houoi
that tint measured poition waa open ti freo aolecdon and
tin t, tis to that mi named portion, the pinindi! had no right
to chum for tresp tssps in respect of that pom n,
No ii Aa regirda No GO, the question was, t bat
wns tho valuo of the improvements on that selection ?"
and that wos a question for tho jnrv. Ihe 1111
provoments must bo auch ns givo permanently in-
creased valuo to the land, such us tho construction of
fencing, darna, and rmgb irkmg It waa not so much the
cost out of pocket, but what increased valuo tho improve-
ments bad given to tho land Ihciowasa, considerable
conflict of testimony aa to the cost of tbeso improve-
ments But lho cost was only a guido, and wes
not tho mensure of tíio value of tho unpiovcments [His
nonor then reviewed tho otidonec "iteu on the quest ou of
tho valuo of tho niiproterneute ] Aa to tho valuo of d10
were liuprot ements to the value of £10, the jilaintift wita en-
titled (0 a 1 erdict, bet anso that beim* the case, tho land 1 aa
not open to conditional purch isc, ml tho deftndaut w ia not
endtlea to go there lho plamtift would bo sidsficd with
nominal damages Hie j uri would esti nate tho value
ot tho luipi01 ementa not only by balm ni1- eudenco of
their tost, but value, as enbin^m0 tin v due of tho measured
jjorliou AJ regnda the finco which nu through No
00, it 1 aa aubinittcd that because it onclo ed no land m
\No GO it waa no improvement, but if it was tho
fjoundirv of a paddock it might bo held to bo 1 n
iniprotcmcut, otherwise a number ot selectors might
tiiLo up a fewo and jet the fonio would en-
close nothing on ¡in one of the selections lho jutt should
lind tbo vulue of the ienroby ltsellvthen thodofendurt went
there lhojuiy should also state whether thov lind thero
were miproii monts lo the taino of -£10, not taking tho
ienco into consideration His Honor lift theso questions to
tie found lit the jinv -1 Were d10 impielements, irre-
spective of the lenco, of the valuo ol £10-1 2 If
not"«.then vint was the valuo of tho fence * lho
cis"\agninst Jumes Smith wus that ho sent Ina son o»i
thoyScction, and told lum to take the sheep to the wator
bolo- on u reavivo incliidtd in d10 pi iiuttff's run lho
quostvin was tv bethel the plaintill bt an tni,ouipnt gue the
dcfcn-iut iierrmssiou to Do to the vvatei hole I he Bon had
no si eep If the sou h id no aoleetion, thon tho futhcr lind
no right to put bia ahtop on the lund lho doicudint
claimed ii n"lit of way to somo of his land and thia right
has bec 1 Jtmtt"d by the pinindi!
Ih" jury rctind at o o'clock, and re timed nt quarter
paat G with a vcidtet for the detuidiiuta m each of the
ictions
Jury Court. - (Before his Honor The Justice WINDEYER
and a jury of four.)
MOORE v. JOHN SMITH
MOORE v. JAMES SMITH
The hearing of these actions was resumed.
By consent these two actions were tried together.
Mr. Darley, Q.C., and Mr. C. B. Stephen, instructed by
Mir.Brennan, for the plaintiff, Mr. Rogers and Dr.
Donovan, instructed bv Messrs. Holdsworth and Evans,
appeared for the defendants.
These were actions of trespass to the Tubbo Run, near
Nrrandera. The action against John Smith was brought
to try the right to selections made by him of measured por-
tions 59 and 60, each containing 320 acres, and against him
the plaintiff only asked for nominal damages. The action
against James Smith, the father of John Smith, was for
trespass by his sheep to the same land, and against him
theplaintiff asked for substantial damages.
The plaintiff was the administrator with the will annexed
of the estate of John Peter, the owner of the run. The
main point in contest was whether the measured portions
hadd been improved to a value greater than £40.
His Honor, in the course of summing up, said that the
plaintiff had brought these actions against John Smith and
also against James Smith, for alleged trespass on Tubbo.
The case against the young man, John Smith, was that he
had taken up two measured portions of 320 acres
each. It was answered that at the time this land
was selected ther were improvements to the
value of £10 on one of these measured portions.
With regard to the other portion, it appeared to his Honor
that that measured poition was open to free selection, and
that, as to the measured portion, the plaintiff had no right
to claim for trespass in respect of that portion,
No. 59. As regards No. 60, the question was, what
was the value of the improvements on that selection?
and that was a question for the jury. The im-
provements must be such as give permanently in-
creased value to the land, such as the construction of
fencing, dams, and ringbarking. It was not so much the
cost out of pocket, but what increased value the improve-
ments had given to the land. There was a considerable
conflict of testimony as to the cost of these improve-
ments. But the cost was only a guide, and was
not the mensure of the value of the improvements. [His
Honor then reviewed the evidence given on the question of
the value of the improvements.] As to the value of the
were improvements to the value of £40, the plaintiff was en-
titled to a v erdict, because that being the case, the land was
not open to conditional purchase, and the defendant was not
entitled to go there. The plaintiff would be satisfied with
nominal damages. The jury would estimate the value
of the improvements not only by balancing the evidence of
their cost, but value, as enhancing the value of the measured
portion. As regards the fence which ran through No.
60, it was submitted that because it enclosed no land in
No. 60 it was no improvement, but if it was the
boundary of a paddock it might be held to be an
improvement, otherwise a number of selectors might
take up a fence and yet the fence would en-
close nothing on any one of the selections. The jury should
find the value of the fence by itself when the defendant went
there. The jury should also state whether they find there
were improvements to the value of £40, not taking the
fence into consideration. His Honor left these questions to
be found by the jury:- 1. Were the improvements,, irre-
spective of the fence, of the value of £40? 2. If
not, then what was the value of the fence? The
case against James Smith wus that he sent Ihis son on
the selection, and told him to take the sheep to the water
hole on a reserve included in the plaintif's run. The
question was whether the plaintiff by arrangement gave the
defendant permission to go to the water hole. The son had
no sheep. If the son had no selection, then the father had
no right to put his sheep on the land. The defendant
claimed a right-of-way to some of his land and this right
has benn admitted by the plaintiff.
The jury retired at 5 o'clock, and returned a quarter-
past 6 with a verdict for the defendants in each of the
actions.
MR M'CATTGHEY'S PROPOSED CANAL. (Urana and Jerilderie Gazette.) (Article), Wagga Wagga Express (NSW : 1879 - 1917), Saturday 30 August 1879 [Issue No.1738] page 7 2019-11-13 16:17 MR. M'CATTGHEY'S PROPOSE
try which is fit present solely dependent
upon, its wells and tanks for its water
supply for pastoral purposes. Through
. of rain, seems to be the most popular
I method of securing water. Their cost
I of construction being less than that of
f 'Weils, has a great deal to do with tin's
nv t.nfl 1n+.tj»r TMp+.linr^ if watov Via of i»iml»
often a little brackish — at a, moderate
which generally comes in a north-eaat
the summer tiine, the amount of eva
poration is verv irreat indeed. It is
iats, as long as these small tanks are
means of storins water, at the same
scheme a survey of a canal has baen made
bidgee and Box Creek Junction CanaL
lignnm swamp of three or four squai-e
comrades generally, butmoreparticularly
for purposes of self-glorification. Prom
they fatten upon it During the pre
ally, after traversing about twoanda
Argoon, Toganmain, XStOplgumbla, Wa
looi^ .Wargam and a number of other
valuable statipn .properties before it
. joins |£e'33illabouj5 jCreefc, near Mouia
? mein. ,*^hi8.jBojt Creek da at present
serves to carry off the surplas Murrum
bidgee flood Waters after they have
uanai commencing m tne point on wic
west of south for the first three auda
half miles, continuing then in nn almost
s an almost uniform decree as it,
it had bpen delivered from the canaL
very jlgbtly upon those interested, and
MR. M'CAUGHEY'S PROPOSED
try which is at present solely dependent
upon its wells and tanks for its water
supply for pastoral purposes. Through-
of rain, seems to be the most popular
method of securing water. Their cost
of construction being less than that of
weils, has a great deal to do with this
by the latter method, if water be struck,
often a little brackish — at a moderate
which generally comes in a north-east
the summer time, the amount of eva
poration is very great indeed. It is
ists, as long as these small tanks are
means of storing water, at the same
scheme a survey of a canal has been made
bidgee and Box Creek Junction Canal.
lignum swamp of three or four square
comrades generally, but more particularly
for purposes of self-glorification. From
they fatten upon it. During the pre
valence of a thirty feet flood the swamp
ally, after traversing about two and a
Argoon, Toganmain, Goolgumbla, Wa
loora, Wargam and a number of other
valuable station properties before it
joins the Billabong Creek, near Moula-
mein. This Box Creek is at present
serves to carry off the surplus Murrum
bidgee flood waters after they have
canal commencing at the point on the
west of south for the first three and a
half miles, continuing then in an almost
in an almost uniform degree as it
it had been delivered from the canal.
very lightly upon those interested, and
Advertising (Advertising), The Riverine Grazier (Hay, NSW : 1873 - 1954), Saturday 6 July 1878 [Issue No.294] page 3 2019-11-13 08:33 ? NOTICE! ?
ANY person or persons found tres?pnsslng aJ'terstoek
or otherwise, or opening or damaging fenfvs upon
Tubbo runs, inclusive oi Ugobits baek'aml Yanko block
F, will be prosecuted. A reward will bo given for infor
mation leading to conviction of any party cut ring or
damaging feucing.
NOTICE
ANY person or persons found tresspassing after stock
or otherwise, or opening or damaging fences upon
Tubbo runs, inclusive of Ugobits back and Yanko block
F, will be prosecuted. A reward will be given for infor
mation leading to conviction of any party cutting or
damaging fencing.

Recent merge/splits

WhenSummaryCommentDetails

Read the merging and splitting guidelines.

Your lists

No lists created yet

Information on Trove's new list feature can be found here.