LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 198, 19 August 1908, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED BT A BARRISTER-AT-LAW • CIVIS writes:—"(l) Presuming a County i Council employs an uncertificated surveyor, in case of a legal dispute arising, would not his so-called professiont al evidence be considered worthless, and any surveys that he may have made invalid?" [The value of the evidence of an unquali- " fied man would be practically nil, but I ' should not like to invalidate the whole of his work, eu bloc. If a dispute arose over " a giveu item, it would, no doubt, have to be tested by a qualified inau.] DIFFICULTY writes: —"I have received an acouut from a bankrupt estate, which is incorrect. I do not think I ought to pay. The official assignee demands immediate settlement at his office in seven days. Before the bankrupt went iv bankruptcy I was unable to get. my account from him; when asked for it : i he would always make some excuse, and said he would send it along; but It never came, until I received this demand. The bankruptcy happened about two months ago." [If Difficulty is of opinion that the account is incorrect, he may refuse to pay It, just as he could if there had been no bankruptcy, lie should write to the official assignee, and give his reasons for objecting. If the latter is not satisfied, he will probably sue for the money, but Difficulty will I still have the right of bringing forward his < objections at the hearing of the matter, lie must be careful to appear in answer to the summons, or else judgment will go by default, and his chances of objecting will have gone for ever.J G.P. writes: —"I rttfe my bicycle to work aud leave it in a shed on private property. The company's employee goes to the shed for a dray, and, not moving the bicycle out of the way. pulls into it, damaging it. Who is liable to pay for the damage done, the company, the employee, or myself?'' I G.P. has not given sufficient information to enable him to get any satisfaction out of this column. He speaks of the company as if there were only one company in existence and everybody knew its busiuess. What I need to know is who was in charge of the bicycle, did G.P. pay for the housing of it. was it negligently left in the drayman's way, had the drayman business in the shed." could he see the machine, or had he reasonable cause to know it was there, nnd what "the company" has to do with the matter.] SUBSCRIBER writes:—"Would you pTease give mc your opinion on the following? I buy a piece of ground, ring-fenced, except river frontage: fence not in good repair. A neighbour has about 200 or 300 sheep running on the ground. I asked him to repair the fence in lieu of rent, which he promised to do. He has no lease, but is making use of the ground by running his sheep on it. He now won't repair the fence. Can I make him pay rent?" [Subscriber cannot make his neighbour pay rent if he has already concluded an agreement with him to accept the repair of the fence as full payment. What he can do, however, is sue him for damages for breach of contract to repair the fence.! UNCERTAIN writes: —"Can a man assume the title of a baronet before his claim has been established or recognised or registration fees paid?" [This is a question quite outside of my experience. It seems to mc, however, that men who assume titles to which they have no right are hardly worth taking seriously.] URGENT. —Tour agreement Is quite useless as it is. The party who would have to pay the fine on stamping it would be the party who seeks to set it up. What is the best course to pursue depends ou the amount of money at stake. If It is worth it, the best course would be to have the agreement properly stamped, and then set it up as a binding lease, and claim damages for removal of the firewood. X.Y.Z. writes:—"A small house and ground is made over by deed of conveyance to an individual connection. but who comes into possession of the same only on the demise of the donor; the donor (aged) in the meantime drawing all benefit or profit from the property during his life. The house is Insured, but the amount of the insurance money would not reinstate it. If the accident of fire should occur, how does the donor stand In respect of the insurance money? (The insurance Is In the donor's name.) Should he put the amount out in interest, and draw the interest only, or has he power to trade with the principal?" [I think the donor in this case cnn fairly ask that his Income shall not be rednced as a consequence of the fire. The best solution would be for the donee to add enough to the Insurance money to re-erect the building aud then things could go on as before the fire.! ENQUIRER writes:—"What should a man do if, after he has purchased a piece of land, a neighbour refuses to put up his share of the boundary fence, when he has been twice requested in writing to do so? Enquirer and a neighbour agreed fully six months ago to put up strong fences with fire barbed wires. I have finished my part several months ago. and my neighbour has done only abont a half, and that with three barbed wires." [Enquirer does not appear to have taken advantage of the Fencing Act, which Is a pity, since it was placed on the statute book entirely to solve Sflcb difficulties as his. If Enquirer can prove his agreement he may sue his neighbour for breach of contract. That would appear to be the only course left open to him now.] VERITY writes:—"A and B are mutual customers. A owes £7, B owes £5 10/. 'A deducts R's contra, and pays him balance of £1 10/, for which he receives an unstamped receipt from B. Is this correct? Should uot the receipt for £1 1 0/ I bear a penny stamp, as also the per contra receipt of £5 10/ given by A, or does the fact that the net payment In arriving at settlement is less than £2 make stamping in either case unnecessary? [This is a question of great importance, and a simple yes or no ought to be possible, and it is little to the credit of our legislation that It Is not. The view Is held among many that transactions of this nature require two stamps to put them In order. But that view, except perhaps among Revenue officers. Is not universal. My own opinion is that in this transaction one stamp only is necessary, and that must be nffixed by A when he deducts B's account from his own. If E then gives a receipt for £1 10/ pimply, and avoids stating that It is "in discharge" of a giveu account. I do not think he could be successfully charged with a breach of the Stamp Act.] X.'Y.Z. No. I.—Question reserved for further consideration. G.G. writes:—"A Norwegian, aged 70, naturalised, has been In the colony 30 years. (1) Is he entitled to old age pension? (2) Must he produce his baptism papers? Failing to produce the same would the Magistrate take his oath as to his age?" [The man In question is entitled to a pension, provided he has been naturalised for 12 months. He should make his application submit what proof of age he has and inquire from the Magistrate what 'more if any, he will require. I ;lo not think his own oath will, alone, be sufficient.] ANTI-HUMBUG writes:—"ls the use of the term "doctor" in the following advertisement legal? (a) When advertiser holds no degree at all? (b) When ho holds one granted by some American College? "X.T. Dental Rooms. Dr. 55." If illegal, who has the right to prosecute?" [It is Illegal If the advertiser does not hold a doctor's diploma, and any persou may prosecute, with the previous consent of the Attorney-General. It is not Illegal if the advertiser holds such a degree, no matter by what body It has been granted, so long as It Is genuine.]