LEGAL INQUIRY.

Auckland Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 121, 25 May 1927, Page 8

LEGAL INQUIRY.

(By A BAKKISTEtt-AT-LAW.)

Letters of inquiry will be answered every week in this column. As far as possible they will be dealt with in the order In which they are received, and replies will be inserted witb the least possible delay. VICTIM.—I do not think any complaint to headquarters will have any effect, and as the evidence will simply be that of one man ngainst, another, even If some action is taken, the result cannot benefit you. S.O.S.—You would apepar to have a good claim to maintenance. Possibly the beat course for you to adopt is to see thr society for the Protection of Women and Children. FED UP.—Ui Yon may reduce the width «f the hedge if you can do so without injuring it. You must, of course, attend to your own side only. (2) You have no remedy. S.W. (Npwton).—The owner has ncted quite legally. If you build on lund which is not your owu the building automatically belongs to the true owner of the land nnti he may let it to whom he pleases. As you were in arrears to the extent of s i x mouths with your rent, tlie owner cannot be said" to have treated you harshly. COCKY.—Yoa are liable as the damage is a result of your own actions and not an act of God. The excellence of vour motives, I am afraid, is not relevant FAll «n'h?ir^ o, ,Y*' m h,lve to «""tribute one-half of the coat of a feme to be ere^ Pd , T thP boundary lin... The best ™twV% you V """I* ,s *° «nd a notice to fence in the ordinary wav lou should verify the boundary liiic before going any further. * NE^r l nt K^ ET /r" An "PPHcation «o a Magistrate is the procedure. There are special forms provided and certain consents must be obtained. The fem would not amount to more than £ 5 at deluding J°ur solicitors SINE MEiTU.—Your letter does not give enough information to enable me to decide your position. You will not be guilty of bigamy if you go through a form of marriage after you have been continually absent from your husband for seven years and have not known that your husband was alive during any part of the period of seven years lr your husband proved to be alive your second marriage would be void and any children illegitimate. It is much more satisfactory to ' get a divorce. OAK.—There are eevernl defences open to the secretary or union in the event of your making a claim, and I cannot see that you would have any possible chance of suceass. Furthermore, assuming the notion was tenabl* if you could prove succesfully the terms of your employment as against the union you w-jnld also be able to prove it as against your employer. Aβ your . . natural remedy is against your * employer you should sue him.