LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 133, 5 June 1907, Page 6

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED BT A BARBISTEB-AT-Letters of inquiry ,wHI be answered every Wednesday in this column. As far as poseible they will be dealt with in the order in which they are received, and replies will De Inserted with the least possible delay. In order to derive the greatest advantage irom the column, correspondents should give tuil particulars ot the fact* npoa which they desire advice. Whatever the details supplied, however, bo responsibility can bp accepted for errors, in whatever way arising, thongh every effort will be made to insure accuracy. Answers are based absolutely on the information given, and, therefore, in all instances, can only be applied to the specific case dealt with.

Every correspondent must enclose his or her real name and address, though, not, of course, for publication.

EATES writes:—"Through the generosity Of church authorities, a church property, house and lands, has been allowed to be occupied ny a family for over 40 years, free of rent, and without any ■written permission. The family Has also paid rates on the same. Does this constitute any claim by the said family to the property?"

[A forty years' uninterrupted user by a single individual would give a good tit'e. But have the owners exercised no acts ot authority in connection with the property during that period? Cases of this kind depend very much upon small details, and. it is desirable that as much information as possible should be supplied. Rates says the property has been occupied by a family. That is far too vague. Persons and periods must be named with come precision before I could form an opinion that would be of any value to my correspondent. . It would be quite possible for a family to occupy a property for 40 years without any individua , being in possession long enough to acquire a title capable of being transmitted to another.]

X.T.Z. says: "I was indentured to a trade comprising three different branches, and was only taught one. • Could I sue my late employer (with any hope of success) for failing to give mc any instruction in the other two branchesjt .Each branch Is distinctly stated in the indenture. It is now five years since I came out of my time. Would the lapse of time make any difference?"' [If X.T.Z.'s employer broke his clearlyexpressed contract, X.Y.Z. has an action against him for damages.- In such a case, however, I should like to peruse the articles of apprenticeship 'before advising finally. The lapse of five years will not bar the claim, but S.T.Z. should not delay longer if he has a real grievance, "and intends to 6eek redress.]

ROADS asks: "If v road has been closed for 40 years, and not used, can the adjoining owner, who has property on both sldps of It, claim it as his property ? The land on each side is under Land Transfer Act, and the road is a blind road."

[Has Roads made himself quite clear? The mere possessiou of property on both sides of a closed road does not give the possessor a right to the land the road occupies. Does Roads mean that he has been using the land as his own for 40 years, and that his occupation of it has been uninterrupted? If so, he had better write again and give mc a brief history of his occupation.]

A.A.B. writes: "I have 20 chains of boundary. I have done half the fence to the satisfaction of my neighbour, who owns the adjoining property. Can 1 compel him to do the other half, or must I pay half the cost of the other hall V The first half I did entirely out of my own pocket The cost would be perfectly the same as I paid for my share. When I put my chare of the fence np. the property belonged to the same owner— it has not changed hands in any way." [A.A.B.'s neighbour has two courses open to him. He must either put up the remaining half-of the fence at his own cost, or he must pay A.A:B.-half of his expenditure to date and bear half the: cost of -completing. the fence, j «-..•*=■

,PRIMROSE writes:—"A was killed by ac- ," cideut in a ballast pit in the South iv November last. His life -was insured in an accident insurance company. He i was never married, and died withoiit | a will. He leaves three illegitimate i children, duly committed to an industrial school,- and , an order -for their support - was made against deceased about six years ago. (1) Deceased , leaves a sister —has she any claim to the Insurance .money? (2) Have illegitimate children any claim in the estate? •' (3) Can the Crown claim the whole -of the Insurance money to pay for the past and future support of the illegitimate children? The estate is in the hands of the Public Trustee,- who has been written to months ago, but has not so far replied to these questions." [Aβ an order has been made against A for the maintenance of his illegitimate children in an industrial school, it is clear that the insurance money will be available 'to meet all arrears due at ' A's death. The order would doubtless fix the ase until which each child was to be maintained by A, and the insurance money will therefore have to be applied, as far as it will go, to meet future payments for their support]

QUERY wishes to know If, having purchased a property, he can hare it conveyed to himself without the intervention of a solicitor, and what the latter's charge would be if he employed one.

[Tes, Query may have his property conveyed to himself without legal ance if he so wishes—and if he is foolish enough. Does Query know anything of tils difficulties of the law of Real Property? 'If not, how will he be able to decide as to the quality of the vendor's title? If the title is not fully and skilfully investigated before the purchase money is paid, Query might . possibly find himself minus both money and property. If he is paying,, say, £500 for the property, a solicitor ■will charge £44/ for Investigating his title β-nd. conveying 6he property [to, Query with a title he cqn pass on when he himself wishes to sell. My advice to Query is to get a trustworthy solicitor to see his purchase properly conveyed to him.]

TESTATOR asks for a form of will giving all his property to his wife.

[The following will suffice:—"l, A.8., of etc. (add address and business), declare this to be my last will, and I hereby devise nn<j bequeath all my real and personal estate unto my wife. C.8., absolutely, and appoint her sole execntrix of tßis my will. In witness whexeof I, the said A.8., bare to this my will set my hand this— day of June, 1907." (Testator's signature.) Below this comes the attestation clause aa follows:—"Signed and acknowledged by the abovenamed A.B. as his will in the presence of us. present at the same time, who In his presence and In the presence of other, have hereunto subscribed our names as witnesses." (Signatures of two witnesses, who will also write their addresses and callings after their names.) The witnesses must see each other sicn as well as the testator. The testator's wife mast not be one of the witnesses.}

INQTJIBER sends the following:—"Will you please give mc your opinion re the following: (a) Under the Factory Act, 1001, and Its Amendments, clause 33, with reference to holidays, states: 'Except as provided by the nest succeeding section, the occupier of a factory snail allow to every woman and boj under IS years of age employed in the factory the following holidays, that Is to say: (I.) A whole holiday on every Christmas Day, New Year's Day. Good Friday, Easter Monday, Labour Day, nnd birthday of the reigning Sovereign, etc., and half-holiday on every Saturday.' When from other causes holidays nre given, such as Empire Day. or through slackness of orders, the* works are closed for. say, one, two or three days a week, is it necessary for an employer to pay boys nnder 18 years of age (not apprenticed) their full weekly wages, or may he deduct the short time and pay them only for the actual time worked? (b) Clause 35: (1) 'Wages for each whole or aalfnoliday shall in*the case of each woman or boy under 18 years of age be at the same rate as for ordinary working days, and shall be paid at the first regular pay-day thereafter. . Does this apply only to the srafnte holidays mentioned or to all general holidays? It does not appear quite clear on the extrart as supplied to factories except vrilh reference to printing offices." ■'■£(■)• Workers employed, by the day .need not be paid for any holidays or days not jreriecl except flw»e #p«ci»Uy oantfaMd fa

a flay for want of orflere. A^LJP* S gaged by "the week Iβ week's wort (b> The to In section 85, eubn«cU6h holidays only, but It <loeg nit toi^ , !? 4 women and boys employes b» and,not by the day »te> lffbU % £& s»k wages stopped for odd flayeirtiJrSL* 4 *!* .tory is idle through lack of todeTef* **