TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 143, 19 June 1922, Page 7

TRANSFER OF PROPERTY.

A VERBAL CONVEYANCE. COURT I'PHOLDS VALIDITY. Judgment, for the plaintiff was given by Mr. Justice Stringer at the Supremo Court this morning in the case of David Bagleson. junr. (Mr. West' against the Public Trustee (Mr. Johnstone 1, as administrator of the late David Eaglcson. who died intestate. The plainti.T claimed that an agreement between his lather and himself was entered into whereby a farm of 158 acres at Varakakau was to be made over to the plaintiff on his return from the war in consideration of work done and money expended. The father died shortly after the son's return from the war before any conveyance had bee.n executed. The defence was a denial of any agreement for the conveyance.

His Honor said that as he intimated at the trial he was satisfied that the alleged gift by the deceased. David Eagleson. to '>' s s °"> the plaintiff, of the farm lands mentioned in the statement of claim was established by the evidence. In the circumstances it was natural and probable that such a gift should l>e made and the plaintiff's evidence on tbe point was amply corroborated by independent unimpeachable witnesses. This being so. the question arose whether the gift being verbal and incomplete, acts of part performance had been proved, sufficient ot take tho case out of the operation of the statute, of frauds.

It was clear, not only from the plaintiff's own evidence but from independent testimony, that the plaintiff was encouraged to spend labour and money on the property 'by the deceased, who, speaking to the plaintiff, said "The place is yours. The more you do on it the better for yourself. It will be a good start for you." Acting on this encouragement, and in reliance on the gift, tho "plaintiff between November 1011, and 'March 1914, improved the property, _vnd during the whole of the 'period above-mentioned the plaintiff received no money or other assistance from his father.

It appeared at the time of the gift in November, 1911, there was in the cottage on the property some furniture of small value, and the question was raised as to whether this was part of the gift. Considering that the furniture was only : worth about £25, that the plaintiff could not carry on the place without some furniture, and that in 1911. he was given possession of the furniture with the farm, his Honor thought it a reasonable inference to draw that the farm was given to the plaintiff as a going concern, and included the furniture. It was not disputed that the unexpended balance of the allotment moneys belonged to the plaintiff.

The case being one in which the Public Trustee was obviously bound to put the plaintiff to strict 'proof of his claims, no Order as to costs would be made.