LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 253, 23 October 1907, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED BT A BABEISTEB-AT-LAff. Letters of Inquiry will he answerefl ever/ Wednesday is. t"2is column. As .far as poasibie thiy will be dealt with in the order in wblcn taey are received, ac 4 replies wilt be inserted with the least possible delaj. In order to derive the greatest advantage from the column, correspondents should give full particulars of tne facts upon which they desire advice. Whatever the details supplied, however, no responsibility can bp accepted for errors. In whatevel way arising, though every effort will be made to insure accuracy. Answers are based absolutely on the information siren, and, therefore, in all instances, can onlj be applied to the specific case dealt -with. Every correspondent must enclose his ot her real namt> nnd address, thougn. not, ot course, for publication. [Correspondents arc reminded that their addresses must appear on their letters of iiaquirv, as well as . their true names. To address simply —Aucklau' , ." Is not sufficient.} AGAMEJIXOX writes: "I am purchasing certain sections with a view to selling them later, on. is the cheapest way I can get a title to the sections (each held by separate owners)? Also, 1 own a large section with house on it. There is a workshop at the back of the section. I wish to fence off a certain portion of the ground with the house on it. and sell It, retaining the remainder with the workshop and a right-of-way to it. The property fronts a street less than a chain wide. Is there any way tne above can be legally done?" [Asamenmcn had better send mc a rough plan of the property he intends to cut up. showing how he proposes to divide it. With regard to the properties bought to be sold again, the least expensive way would, he to take agreements from the vendors instead of conveyances or transfers. I do not see how Agamemnon can safely make the transfer himself as Sβ suggests.] FAIR FLAT asks the following questions: "A is employed by a company, and while he is in their employ meets with an accident. He is laid tip for one week. Is he entitled to any compensation for that week under the Workers" Compensation Act? B is employed by the same company. He is laid up two weeks by an accident, lie receives three days at half-pay for the two weeks. Is he entitled to any more? C is employed by the same company. He is laid up one week and five days. He also receives three days at half-pay. Is he entitled to any more?" [A is not entitled to any compensation. B —The compensation in this case depends on B's wages. He cannot claim more than c>o per cent of his wages, unless they are not less than 30/ weekly, when he" may claim a minimum of 20/ a -n-eek. Also, he is entitled to nothing for the first week. C—Tie same rules apply to C's case as to B's. It works out thus: Neither B nor C gets anything for the first sis days. After that each gets not more than half his wages for every day's absence, but if either is earning 30/ a week or more he can claim at the rate of a pound a week at least for any time lost after the first week.] Z.Z. writes: "What action can I take against a person for making false state ments to the police, viz., that I illtreated my child? I can prove by witnesses and by people living with mc that the statements made- are ■ ntterlv false." [Ac answer to this question as it stands is not possible. Perhaps it will be sufficient to say that the words are enough' To give a cause of action if the occasion on which they were used was not privl-; leged. If Z.Z. contemplates bringing an action he should consult his solicitor, as actions for defamation are among the most difficult to manage.] INQUIRER writes: "A has a piece of unfenced land, part of which is in bush with wiid pigs running on it. He finds B trespassing on it with dog and gun, and a bag on his baci, which plainly contains meat. A declines to take B's word that the bag contains only the carcase of a wild pig. as he is constantly losing aheep which he cannot account for. (1) Can A legally search B's bag? (2) If justified in searching what shonld A do if B resists? (3) If Dot justified in searching, what is the' best thing for A to do under the circumstances?" [(1) Tes. (2) Go on searching if tncre is no serions danger. B will be responsible if a breach of the peace results. Perhaps Inquirer has overlooKed the fact that whether B takes sheep or pigs from the property against A's wish it is equally theft, and B may be prosecuted.] KAURI writes: "A bnys a section of land from B. There are a lew kauri trees on the land, and A cannot afford to give an extra price for the land (to include the trees), so B sells the kanri as it stands to C. A signs an agreement to allow C to remove the timber, provided it is removed within twelvo agreement was signed. The time has expired, and C Las nade no effort to remove tlie timber. Can A (being the

owner of the land on which the fcaarl stands) use the timber Mmseif, or must he let it stand? Can he remove it oil of tne property ana send it away and sell it, or conld C seize the logs as soon as tbej were taken off the property?" [If Kami's construction of the agreehas expired, and the trees are the property of A. That being so, A may use them on or off the land, and C has no power to seize them. Kauri, however, will note that this answer is based solely on his own account of the effect of his acreement with C] TOTARA writes: "A lias a mare on the pnblic road. B has a stallion Inside his fence. B's stallion gets injured through trying to get out to A's mare. Would A be responsible for the injury to the stallion?" [Tie law is somewhat vague on questions of this kind, but I am of opinion that A may be held responsible. He does a wrongful act in letting his mare trespass on the road, and the damage to the stallion may fairly be described as a "natural and probable consequence" of A's wrongdoing, and so recoverable.] J.G. writes: "A man takes 21 years' lease of run, and when the title deeds are settled, he asks B to go half shares in same lease on agreement. At the end of one year's working A becomes bankrupt, through no cause of B. B is creditor of A as a wage earner and half profits. Through As bankruptcy lease is likely to change hands. In what position does B stand? Is he able to realise half what the run is sold for, or retain his half share?"' [A's bankruptcy annuls the partnership. Whether B continues in the business or not is a matter of arrangement. If a purchaser -can be found for A's share as it stands, -well and good. If not. the property will have to be sold as a whole, in whicn case B -will receive Ms proper share in the net proceeds. B may. probably, be able to make arrangements with the Official Assignee to enable him (B) to wind up the partnership affairs himself.] X..J.M. writes: **A and B have an argumpn. A says he can go to a fhop or bank with a £I—note or sovereign— and ask for change, and in reply to what he desires as change, say 'twentyone shillings.' B says be cannot demand twenty-one shillings for one pound, but he can demand twenty-one shilling pieces. Which is correct?" [Both. A can "aeroana" what he likes. What lie will receive is a different matter.] HOXOS writes: "H and W have allotments adjoining, and a tree was growing right on the dividing fence line between them. R has a fence extending across the end of both H and W's sections, but a little away from the tree. The wind has blown down th<? tree and damaged a cottage on R's allotment, and aiso broken down part of the fence. Is R entitled to any compensation from H and W for the damage rlone?"' [In this case everything will depend on the circumstances, but on jrrneral principles, if the tree was in sound condition, alive, and not dangerous to the knowledge of the owners, and was blown down in a severe gale, H and W would not be responsible for tne damage.] A.B.C. writes: "1 agree to sell an old building to A for a small sum. He removes the same, and then offers to pay, but says he is acting as agent for a Government Department, and wants mc to sign two receipts, or. rather, one receipt and a duplicate receipt. I rehe refuses to pay." . [1 do not understand why A.B.C. refuses to give a duplicate receipt. It is a thing very commonly done, and involves no responsibility. He should certainly give it.] F.E. writes: "A encloses a copj- of a will, and wishes to know if there'is anything in the will to prevent Elizabeth E. from disposing of the property as sac pleases?" [All that Elizabeth E. has power to dispose of is the household furniture and effects. In the real estate she has only a life interest, and when she dies the property will go to the next of kin of the testator.J CORNSTALK writes: "I bought £20 worth of furniture from a man. and agreed to pay so much each month off the debt. -Tlie amount was not fixed, and the agreement was verbal. The first payment falls due on 25th October, but he now wishes mc to pay whole amount at once, I cannot possibly do this, but am willing and able to pay at least £4 each month, as we agreed in first place. I have only my husband's earulnsi. Can he summons mc? Can he refuse to take £4 oC debt on date stated? If so, what ought 1 do?" [If the seller of the furniture agreed to take payment in instalments be cannot demand payment in full at once. Cornstalk should send him the four pounds on the 2oth. and if any trouble arises write mc