318
the 17th November.
Fr. Slade replied that there were several reasons.
First of all they naturally anticipated that the Crown would join them as respondents; the Crown knew of their existence and that they were assignees of this property; their title-deeds were on the register.
The Chief Justice grants the title.
There is no title; the Crown
Mr. Slade contended that they had a title and that it was on register, and it was hardly credible that the Crown Solicitor did not make a search to find out if there were assignees. The proper course would have been for the Crown to join them. Then they had two good rights in this land. It was perfectly obvious to anyone who had read the evidence taken in the Court below that, unless the Crown adduced further evidence they could not possibly succeed, and it was not until the 13th instant they obtained leave to adduce fresh evidence; until that time there did not appear to be any necessity for the assignees to put themselves to the expense of being made parties to the suit, believing that the Crown were not going to adduce fresh evidence. As soon as the Crown got this leave it became of vital importance to these assignees that they should be made parties, and an application was accordingly made. It was not their fault that the Crown, before getting their leave to adduce fresh evidence, and before filing affidavits, had already got a day fixed for the hearing of the case; it was a reversal of the ordinary practice. Coming to the merits of the case, the position of the assignees was set forth in the affidavit by Mr. Deacon filed on the 18th November, their solicitor. For the two applicants, by an Agreement dated 16th January 1901, between two other men and the two applicants, the latter purchased from the former.
2.