SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 14292, 1 March 1912, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) SMITH r. SMITH.

The case Esther Smith v. George Smith, an application for th©_ recision I ci a transfer of 143 acres at Kaikoura, | was continued. Mr Raymond,,-with bim Mr Cassidv, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr George Harper, with him Mr Honen, for the defendant. On th© previous day evidence had been called by the plaintiff to show that the transfer of land from her to the defendant was made on representations which were false. Th© hearing of th© plaintiff's case was resumed, evidence being given by Frederick Uaker, black-! smith, Thomas Smith (son of the plaintiff), and William John Smith (the plaintiff's husband). The of these witnesses was to the effect that th© defendant had not brought up or maintained the members of the plaintiff's family. This closed the caso for the plaintiff, and Mr Harper called the defendant, George Smith, who is how licensee 01 tho Club Hotel, Kaikoura- When his mother left, he was living in a cottage on a portion of the farm. During the time th© children were living with his father on tho farm they used to go to his (witness's)* wit© for shelter or protection. He did not find them in tood or clothing, though he would giv© them food on theso occasions. His father was ultimately turned off the farm, and a man named Maxton, who had acted as bailiff, told witness that he could get a lease. Witness got lenses, the landlords being the mortgagees, Messrs Bruges and Pratt. The land, fences, and house were not in good condition. Witness pulled down th© hous© and built another. Tho children sometimes stayed with hijoir Ho did not tell Mr Wcigall that he had maintained or edtir cated the children. Ho said that he had Kept a horn© for them- Ho meant that they always had a bed and a meat wlien they came to his place. With the exception of Arthur, the other members of the family were often at th© farm. He had leased th e farm tor six years at £203 per annum for the farm, and £18 for the fellmongery. The fact that he had not paid Mr Weigall th© £32 10s he advanced was due to a mistake. In reply to Mr Raymond, the witness said that ho bought 540 acres of laud at Timaru, costing over £4000. He paid £1000 cash. Ho also paid cash for a house. Altogether he had £1600. When he came back from Australia ho called tenders for th© letting of the Kaikoura farm, and got 30s per acre. Ha claimed that ho had "looked after" th© rest of the family by having a bed and food for them when they wanted them, and by saving the farm frdm being sold by th© mortgagees. He had occasionally helped members of the family with small loans of money. His Honour asked the witness whether thi3 conveyed his idea of maintaining and supporting the family. Itwas on the.representation that he had maintained aud supported the family that ho had obtained th© transfer. The witness replied that h© did not ask his mother to make the transfer. His Honour said that the defendant's representations implied that tho transfer would bo a proper reward for what ho had don© for th© family. Hubert. C. Collins, of Christchureh, formerly of Kajkoura. John Fallowfield Appleyard, of Christchureh, James Boyd, Rose Smith, and John Davidson also gave evidence, some of which was directed to show that the defendant had improved the farm, and some to show that members of the family had frequently stepped at tho defendant's house. His Honour gave judgment for the plaintiff. He said that the question was: "Did the defendant take the'conveyance of th© property by untrue representation?" Tlie answer was "Yes." The plaintiff liad absolutely established her case, and was entitled to judgment with costs for the relief claimed. \A certificate was granted for* second counsel and second day. .