LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 79, 1 April 1908, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED B- A BARRISTEB-AT-

E.B. writes:—"The fence between mine and my neighbour's property has collapsed, partly from decay, and partly through the ground being dug away on his allotment. The builder, in levelling the ground to make a pathway, dng away right up to my fence, leaving no batter. The levelling was from nothing in front to about six feet at the back. Consequently, the back half of the division fence is constantly falling over through my ground crumblins away. Can I compel my neighbour to erect a retaining wall to keep my ground up:"

[If the. .round of E.B.s section falls away in consequence of the removal of the soil from his neighbour's property, he may claim from his neighbour the amount of the damage he suffers in consequence. He is entitled to have tae surface o. his land supported by that of his neighbour's, as it formerly was, but he can hardly insist upon his neighbour erecting a retaining wall. How the support shall be given is a matter more, for his neighbour to decide.]

FARMER writes: "I hole: a section under the Mining Districts Land Occupation Act, ISO-t, and I want to know, have I the right to stop any person from coming through my place, except the.owners of the sections adjoining, for whom the surveyor showed a way out. I attach a plan."

[This is a question of title, depending on the contents or Farmer's lease, and the lease of "C." on the plan. If the right of way is a public right of way, then "Farmer" cannot question any person using it. If. however, as Farmer suggests, the right of way was reserved for the owners of section "C" only, then he may object to any person using it except the owner of "C," his family, servants, and- other persons having business with such owner. "B" and "D" have no right of way through "C" unless it is given to them by their leases, or it has been since legally granted by a sufficient memorandum under the Land Transfer Act. The owner of "C" has a right to lock his gate if there is no ri.ht of way across his property.]

QUERIST writes: "A European has been living with a Maori woman for 16 years, recognised by the natives as his "wife; he has bought land, improved it, mostly by earnings and labour, and also has had the labour and earnings of the woman's niece. The title of the land is iv his name. He is about to sell, and to leave the woman without anythiug. I am informed Maori marriages are legal. In this case, would she be considered as his wife? If not what redress has she?"

[The "wife" should claim half the property as hers and her niece's, and, if there are any children of the union, she could prevent the father going away without making provision for them. ■ Querist's best course, under the circumstances, is to introduce his friend to a reliable solicitor, as promptitude may be of the utmost importance in the case. The marriage is not legal.]

J.F. writes:—"l have appealed to my neighbour to have a drain crossing my property removed, and he replies that the Council laid the drain, which supplies three houses, before the section was built on. As the drain Impedes mv progress in making a lawn, have I any redress?"

[J-F. should notify the Council in question.'point out the circumstances, and apply to have the drain so placed as not to Interfere with the improvements he wishes to make.] /

"DAMP, writes:—"Can I: compel my ifelgh- - -bour to cut down his trees, which are causine my house to be damp. My house is'lß inches.inside boundary, and his trees are IS inches inside, his boundI ary. The trees axe-in a row all down the section, and some 30ft high."

p Damp has no power to compel his neighbour to cut the trees, as long as-they do not encroach on his land, above or below —that is, any part of the frees, root or branch, crossing -the boundary, he can insist upon having removed. Probably, however, half of the roots of these' trees are in Damp's soil, and if "Damp" notified his heighborir that he intended to insist on having them cut off, and kept cut, his neighbour might decide that the trees were becoming more trouble than they were worth.]

SUBSCRIBER writes:—"l am notified by my landlord, who has sold the house I have been living in, to vacate it at the expiration of one month from the ' date of his letter. In the event of my not being able to procure a house, can I remain in this house at my old rent, or must I keep paying Increasing rent, until I can procure a house?"

[The new owner need not give another notice, and if "Subscriber" insists on occupying the house he will, of course, have to pay whatever rent the landlord requires for its use. But- even that will give him no title to stay,-as the landlord'may have him turned out under the authority of the Magistrate's Court.]

ANXIOUS writes:—"ln reference to -a question asked by mc a few weeks ago, you said there should not be a procuration fee. I had to pay fee, also for transfer and mortgage deeds. Can I under the terms of this agreement (a copy of which I send you) claim a refund of the procuration fee, as it was distinctly understood that I was not to have any expense in getting the money, and what steps should I take to recover same?"

[There Is very little satisfaction in advising people who deliberately do the thing they have been advised not to do, and then ask how to get out of the difficulty they have got into. The copy agreement enclosed is not clear in its terms, and would be of no assistance in making a claim for a refund. If "Anxious" wishes to take steps to recover the Drocnratlon fee, she must sue in the Magistrate's Court. But the l-ct that she has paid the money will make it difficult for her to prove that she had stipulated that she should not be liable for it]

INTEGRITY writes;—"As a child, I was christened by the pastor of an old established church, say in 18S1. This minister is now deceased, several others haviug been in charge for different peii«vns in the meantime. - I now require the baptismal - certificate (or copy) to settle some legal point, and am told that the same cannot be given mc What .should or can I do?"

[Get a certificate of birth.]

WHANGAROA asks:_-«'A man having seven children, and property worth £5000 gives to one (while he Is living), property worth £3000, to another, property worth £1000, lea-ring the balance (£1000) to be divided at his death between the other hve. Is there not a law compellin. an equal adjustment of the Property, giving to each child an equal [No, there is no such law. and If the gift were valid, as g fts from one living perlon no Remedy. 1 ne = lected c ™drcn have

FOSTER writes: "I am a weekly tenant of the dwelling in which I reside, and pay my rent punctually. The owner is anxious to sell the property, and has put up a board "For Sale,"'etc., inside the front gate, without consulting mc (1) Is he justified iv entering the property for snch a purpose? (•->) if I destroy the board, am I liable for any damages for so doing?" [ (1) No. (2) Foster should not destroy the board—such a course is unecessary He may, however, remove it. or cut it down if he prefers, as often as it is erected 1 •

B.H. writes: "Can I compel, my husband to give mc more money towards my support, for he only allows mc from 10/ to 17/ a week; and if I. want a hat or a new pair of boots, he tmvs them, but he stops the cost out of his next week's wages. He is in a constant billet at the rate of £2 2/ a wee., without overtime. I have one child, and 1 go to work myself, and every penny I earn goes towards the support of the house. I want to know if he can compel mc to put my own earnings in to support the house, and if I can compel him to give mc more money towards my support." ■•••.' t_.H. need not spend her own money on toe honse, neither need she go out to work. She may get what is necessary to keep herseirand the household supplied, and her k ,_"_ wUI have to P ay the hills. She should be careful, however, to limit herself to what is reasonably accessary.]