Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

MAORI LAND CASE.

DEPOSIT FOR PURCHASE.

i The Magistrate, T. A. B. Bailey, Esq., S.M., gave his judgment in the case Alexander D. A. McDonald, Wainui plaintiff, and Mary Walker, Little River, defendant, a claim for J3o at the S.M. Court, , Little River on Tuesday. ThY plaintiff claimed to recover from defendant the sum of £25 which plaintiff alleged that he had paid to the defendant as a deposit on account of the purchase money for a certain section of land belonging to the defendant, situated at Little River on the ground that the defendant had ■ represented that the land was free from any encumbrance by way of leasehold, or otherwise, and that the land proved to be subject to a •lease for a term of years. The plaintiff's story was that he met the defendant in the train and that she .agreed to sell the property in question for the sum of £125, and that delivery could be given at once. That he paid her the sum of £25 by cheque at the Lincoln station. It was subsequently found that the property was subject to a lease confirmed by the Native Land Court with sixteen years to run. Defendant's story was that she did not agree to sell the property for £125, but that she wanted £125 an acre for it, and that the plaintiff asked for the refusal of the property and paid £25 for it. There was a direct conflict of evidence between the parties, neither of whose evidence was sufficiently corroborated to enable him to come to a definite conclusion as to which disclosed the actual facts. The only suggestion of corroboration was in the evidence of Mr Taylor, called by the plaintiff, but his evidence if anything corroborated the evidence of the defendant, as she spoke of a conversation between defendant and himself in which defendant, told him she would sell the land for £125 per acre, and that Mr M'Donald wanted first chance of the land. The burden of proof that the money was paid for the purpose set forth in the statement of claim lies on the plaintiff. He had not satisfied the bench beyond doubt that it was so paid. The plaintiff must therefore be non-suited with costs. The magistrate said he was surprised that any person who had had as -many dealings iin land as the plaintiff said he had, should enter into any contract for the purchase of land from any person, let alone a Maori whose contract would have to be confirmed by the Native Land Court, without getting some memorandum in writirig on the subject, and he had only himself to blame if he was unable to prove his contract. ,

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AMBPA19160414.2.19

Bibliographic details

MAORI LAND CASE., Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LXXXV, Issue 3536, 14 April 1916

Word Count
452

MAORI LAND CASE. Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume LXXXV, Issue 3536, 14 April 1916

Working