LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 17, 20 January 1909, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

CONDUCTED BY A BABBISTEB-A*-LAW. E.L.F. writes:—"ln to-night's issue yon have an article entitled *An Impudent Imposture.' I am sorry to inform you that we have fallen victims to these plausible persons, and have ordered and signed a paper to take one of these enlargements, at 45/, paying a deposit of 5/: but what is worse, my wife some fortnight ago entrusted to them a photo. The words used were exactly the same as quoted in your paper. I shall esteem it a favour if you could advise rne what to do to regain photo., and if It is necessary to go on paying, and if I am forced to take the enlargement? Of course, I expect to lose the 5/." TE.L.F. has apparently not committed himself at all. If the bargain was made by his wife, he Is not responsible, and may refuse to make any payments. The sellers would then have to recover from the wife, but if she has no property In her own right, they could hardly succeed. They would probably claim to have a lien on the photograph for the debt, and might succeed in establishing it. If so, of course, the photograph would be lost unless the money . was paid. If E.L.K". himself signed the order for a frame at 45/, and paid a deposit on it, he will have to pay the rest of the money unless he is prepared to let the seller sue him, and defend the action on the ground that the charge was unreasonable. He would have little hope of success If the case went to trial, bnt the other side might discontinue rather than have the unwelcome advertisement the trial would provide.! MANAKO writes:—"A has a~"seetion on main road, and has r bni]t a home. B has section next door to A. B Is building on his section, and, during drainage operations the roots of a very large tree on A's section have been cut away quite unnecessarily, as the earth is sandy and quite easy to tunnel under roots. Instead of cutting roots, or, in any case, the main roots, the result being that the stability of the tree has been much reduced, and It 1b much more liable to blow over in a gale, and probably cause much damage, besides the fact thai such a tree on a property Improves the aspect of the place, and the loss of it would decrease the value of section. The questions I would like answered are: (1) Who would be responsible fox any damage done should the tree fall, the roots having been cut? (2) Can A make any claim should the tree die or fall? (3) is the owner of B's section responsible for such matters, or Is It the builder or sub-contractor?" [(1) A, the owner or the tree. If anybody. (2) No. (3) Neither. Before A could make anybody responsible he must establish a.rtrht to.grow; the roots of his tree In his neighbour's land.] A.H.B. writes:—"After working for a period of more than six months at ho much per hour, could my boss, knowing that he Intended discharging mc, hang mc on from Christmas Eve till the 3rd of Jaxiuary, and then:, say, *I Intended telling you I did not want you after Christmas.' On the Christmas Eve I - was paid my wages, and asked when 1 should resume work,- and was told by them to come on Monday, January 4th. and when I turned up ready for work 1 was paid for two hours only, for tho time I had lost on that particular mora-., ing. Don't yon think It right that 1 should be paid for the lost time? I could have been working for another person if I had known I was to be put off."

£A.H.B. was undoubtedly treated in a mean and unmanly spirit, but I am sorry to say that, as he was working by the hour, he has no remedy. . KAOMAI has no remedy against the sender of the post card.- He has only himself to blame. BEN HAIL writes:—"Jones owes Brown £10, for which amount Jones receives a summons. Jones goes to the Clerk of the Court, acknowledges the debt, and offers 2/6 per week. Is Brown compelled to accept Jones' offer, or can he pro ceed with a judgment summons, or issue a warrant of distress?" [Brown is not compelled to accept, bnt may proceed as suggested.] STOREKEEPER.—If the company was duly formed, Storekeeper cannot have his sharemoney returned. A company has no power to refund capital. He should go to the registered offlce of the company, and make Inquiries as to what business the company is doing. W.S. —The neighbouring owner is merely making a vain boast He cannot cut off the water himself, and if he should succeed to having the pipes removed from his land they could the same day be connected from the road. Thus there Is nothing for the tenant to fear. J.W. writes:—"l am the owner of a house in the city. Directly behind my house, which is two feet from my boundary, is built a washhouse, about 24ft long, and .vhich completely obstructs the light of three windows, and the smoke from the Chimney is so annoying that I have to keep all my windows closed. Now, sir, can you tell mc what steps I must take to have the washhouse lowered or removed, to enable mc to get sufficient light from .my windows?"

[J.W. has no remedy, because she has suffered no wrong, unless It be from the smoke, which would have to be fairly constant to constitute a nuisance at law. If she will ponder a moment she will see that the trouble arises from her own fault, or that of her predecessor in title. What she wishes Is to not only claim the right to place her building wherever she thinks pro: per on her own section, but also to decide for the adjoining owner where he must place his outbuildings oh hlB. In such an enterprise the law would be of no assistance to her.]

writes:—"Will you please inform mc If it is legal for a private individual to issue a summons on another person, or whether it Is to be done by the police?"

tit" Is quite competent for a private person to do it]

IN IXHJBT writes:—"Relation of mine dies, and makes a will which is in favour of the sisters. When he was dying I was ■ willed verbally certain articles, and amongst those articles there was a ticket for a bank book. As we have no knowledge of the ticket, am I entitled to same?"

[A verbal will to such circumstances is of no value. • Even a gift of the bank bopk, however, would not be effective to pass the property In any money to the bank. Thus the loss of the "ticket" can make no difference to "In Doubt."]

G.E.—The neighbour has no right to build a cow shed resting on your fence, particularly If he himself has no Interest in the fence, and his own is only a few feet away. He may be sued In the Magistrate's Court for trespass.' In any cage, even If the roof did not rest on the fence, the neighbour could be prevented from letting the water from his roof drop on to your land.

PATER FAMILIAS.—The contents of this letter Indicate a rather serious state of affairs. An annuitant is entitled to have his annuity paid regularly and without deductions, p.ovlded that the estate Is good enough to meet it. If the facts are as stated in Pater FamiHas' letter, the trustees should be asked to resign, and if they refuse, the matter could be brought before the Court When an annuitant is left a fixed sum per annum, he Is entitled to be paid at least once In each year, and he has ground for complaint if he is kept waiting eighteen months and two years between payments.

MANUFACTUBBft'S AGENT has not conformed with tho rule and enclosed his name,