C 325 er impropriety of the decision at the time it was given; and thus at the point on which they had to decide lies that decision should have been given and whether it could have been given if the Court had by then possession of the 31st February special and had not been deprived by some forged document. The documents as found most go to & for forgery that was vital to the plot. By posing the Court 2014 Absthur & A & FITE.er could ably done year or two previously entitled them to be admitted in regard 166! He did not consider the plaintiffs are weak they might have urged the Government, but interfere, happened in this case, could not prevent them from taking action against the Government or anyone else they thought fit, and he declined to allow the question they had to lay as to whether the decision or the land Court was a proper decision, by adding Duke lots AB respondents.
2. Pollock J. thought the application ought to be refused. It appeared to him to admit Olene 2; „licants 20 22 respondents would amplify the difficulty of coming to a decision on the question of whether the Land Court was right or wrong when they allowed this claim. At the time the Land Court gave their decision the applicants, so far as this house was concerned, were non-existent. He was of the opinion that the application was made merely to try to get a title out of the Court, which he was not inclined to do.
The application was dismissed with costs.