Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED BY A BARRISTER-AT. . LAW. Letters of inquiry will be answered every Wednesday in this column. As far as posii, v., S y wUI be dealt with in the order 1 wmch they are received, and replies wlli be inserted with the least possible delay, fro °^ er to derive the greatest advantage irom the column, correspondents should whir.*, .i 1 P art iculars of the facts upon det=n y deslre advice. Whatever the can h Eup P Ued > however, uo responsibility l -"n o s accepted for errors, in whatever way arising, though every eSort will be made to insure accuracy. Answers are based absolutely on the Information given, and, therefore, iv all Instances, can only be applied to the specific case dealt with. Every correspondent must enclose his ot ber real name and address, though not, ot course, for publication.

E.T. writes:—"A man gives his wife a sum of money as a present. She invests it in stock, of which the husband has the use, if she desires to sell the stock, can she do so without the consent of her husband, and cau she keep the money?"

[If, as E.T. says, the money was given to the wife unconditionally, she may do as she. pleases with it.]

J.S. sends an extract from a will, and asks: —"Does the above clause signify that the principal wall be paid to the son's children after his death, or does it mean that the iuterest only will be paid to them? Is there any termination to the trustY

[The interpretation of the clause submitted is that the principal will be paid to the son's children. There is no such thing as an interminable trust. It is prohibited by law to tie an estate up permanently.]

Justice writes:—"A former partner of mine had an agreement with mc to put £7 into a business, providing I put In £21. The amount was invested, and an agreement drawn and sigued. The agreepartner suddenly left without notice, should terminate the partnership. My partner suddenly left without notice. What steps can I take to dissolve the partnership?''

[Justice should send a mouth's notice to hie partner to his last known address. He shoud also address one to him at the place of business, and place It on his desk, or in some conspicuous place where he would be likely to see it if he came in. With regard to the part of Justice's letter which I have not printed, I shall need further information. Does Justice suggest that the takings were short? It does not appear from the letter that the whole of the £S belonged to Justice. Is this so?J

Advance writes:—"lf I take a house as weekly tenant, and pay the rent in advance, am I foiced to give a week's notice, or pay a week's rent on leaving, or can I leave at any time durlug the week I have paid up to?"

[Advance is one of those persons who will not take the trouble to set down clearly the question he wishes to ask. If he wishes to know whether he can leave his honse without either giving notice or paying a full week's rent in lieu of notice, the answer is no.l

Parnell writes: "(f)ls a neighbour within his legal rights in building lattice work, wire netting, or other structures on top of our dividing fence, so as to enable him to grow passiou fruit, creepers, climbers, and such like thereon? (2) Should he not be within his tights in so doing, what steps can I take to have such structures removed which have already been attached to our dividing fence by him?"

[Unless the ueighbour is damaging the fence, Parnell would get no satisfaction in interfering. The best thing for him to do is to use the fence for a similar purpose ou his own side. That should put him rather more than even with his neighbour.]

Kaipara writes:—"Two years ago last May I sued a steamship company for a month's wages in lieu of notice, as master of a steamer, receiving monthly wages. My lawyer did not think it necessary to call any witnesses, though I could have got a dozen to state it was usual to get a month's notice The other side produced two men who swore it was customary on'y to give a master of a boat 24 hours' notice. This case was taken up by the Shipmasters' Association, as it is the rule all over Xew Zealand to give a master of a boat a month's notice. Will you please let mc know whether I can make these men prove what swore, and what steps I would have to take."

[Kaipara himself has no remedy against the witnesses. If they gave evidence they knew to be false, they may be prosecuted for perjury, and if that was successful, it would be good grounds for reopening h'S case against his former employer.]

A.B. writes:—"A and B - s premises adjoin A has growing on his property a lar"e and handsome tree (oak). Some of its larger arms stretch over into B's ground 20 or 30 feet overhead. B is a new tenant. He at once starts aud saws away half the tree, asking no permission. The tree is now to all intents and purposes ruined. Has A a legal claim for the timber B has taken? Can B charge A expenses for cutting (having cut it up for firewood)?"

[A has no right to have the limbs of his •4ree overhanging his neighbour's section. B may not have gone about the matter in a proper manner, but it would not be wise for A to raise that question. I am of opinion that, under the circumstances, B has no right to make any charge for cutting. The wood belongs to A.]

J.R. —I have perused the copy will submitted. I gather from it that George R and George Cornelius R. are persons. Caroline Amelia C.'s interest cannot be stated without information as to Elizabeth R.s family, except as to the house in Tiiree King's Court, in which C.A.C. was given a life interest. As to the house in Montague-place, that would pass under the -will of George Complins R., if he had issue living at his death. If he had not the property would go" to testator's two sons equally. Thus my correspondent mi«ht or might not get a share of it, according to the disposition of the estates of those sons Joseph and George R respectirelv. Caroline Amelia C. had no interest In the capital value of the house.

Trade wishes to know:—"What constitutes the legal cancellation of a stamp on a receipt?" - " a

[The initials of the person signing must appear on the stamp as well as the date Cancellation is not complete without both j

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19070710.2.71

Bibliographic details

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 163, 10 July 1907, Page 8

Word Count
1,143

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN. Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 163, 10 July 1907, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN. Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 163, 10 July 1907, Page 8

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert