LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 173, 24 July 1930, Page 27

LEGAL INQUIRY COLUMN.

(By BARRISTER, AT LAW.)

[Letters of inquiry will be answered every week in this column. As far as possible they will be .dealt with in the trder in which they are received, and replies will be inserted with the least possible delay.]

EIIUIA.—If the beneficiaries have, as you indicate, agreed to take a smaller amount than >was due to them, they will have difficulty now in claiming the full amount. I cannot be more definite unless I peruse the correspondence. BUSINESS.—'Yon-" should talt'e rent from anyone who is willing to pay .you. The mere fact of receiving rent • from the wife .will not make her the tenant, if in fact you. let the property to the husband. As the husband is in work and tie wife. is not, you would be foolish to insist on the property being- let to the wife. BAR.- —If the will, is invalid no one can claim under it. "Whether the niece is ' entitled,, to any share in the estate - depends- on whether any nearer relatives are surviving. The niece can he legitimated without trouble if her parents apply to the Registrar of Births. COLOROY.—You are entitled to three months'' notice in writing.' Xo steps can be taken for recovering the money or selling the property-until the notice has expired, unless you get in arrears With the interest. COMPO.—You cannot claim for the repairs unless you can prove that the accident or damage was the. result of negligence of the employer or one of his workmen or employees. • — WORRIED. —You cannot be compelled to take the property back. You may sue for the moneys owing, but it is waste of money suing a named woman who has no income of her own.. Her husband is not liable. You should verify the financial position of the woman and-if she has nothing you cannot do better than accept the property back and endeavour to resell. C.T.'S. —You are bound to pay a reasonable sum for the man's services, and unless there are exceptional factors not disclosed in your letter, I think the reduced claim is unreasonable. The plaintiff will be able to get innumerable witnesses from among his professional brothers, but the recognised scale is against him if your figures are correct. I would advise offering about one-third of the amount claimed and if it is not accepted, defend the claim. Had a strong protest been made five years ago against the man going beyond his instructions and no payment been made on account, I would offer only five pounds and fight any further claim. EXCESSIVE. —You will find it cheaper to pay the five shillings than to dispute the item, which is a legitimate charge. AiNXIOUS.—If your wife left no children you will be the sole owner now. If she left children you will be entitled to one-third of her share, and of course your own half share as well, unless the property was held by you and your wife jointly, in which case you are now solely entitled. Whether, you held jointly or in common will depend onthe wording of the deed under which you hold the property. In order to get the title into your own name you will require to register evidence of death against it. ANZAC. —If you do not pay the agreed instalments the articles may be jseized, and the money you have paid on them will be wasted. You should make the best bargain you can with the seller, and if you cannot keet both payments going, keep the machine and pay on it and risk losing the other articles. r■ A WNMOWER.—You might try to get the man to repair the machine properly, but the amount you have paid is too small to warrant you trying to force him to refund what you have paid him by Court proceedings.