SUPREME COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIV, Issue 291, 7 November 1934, Page 10

SUPREME COURT

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION,

RONGOTEA FARM PROPERTY,

Claiming possession of a 20-acre farm property, situated one mile from Rongotea, and £IOO, Alvine Ettie Albertme Bottcher, the wife of Herman Charles Bottclier, of Rongotea, farmer, took action in the Supreme Court at Palmerston North, yesterday, before His Honour Mr Justice Blair, against Percy Leonard Bottclier, of Rongotea, factory hand. Mr J. M. Gordon appeared for plaintiff and Mr H. R. Cooper for defendant.

The statement of claim set out that plaintiff was the owner in fee simple of 20 acres, 21 perches, and had occupied and worked the land since 1908. In or about February, 1931, plaintiff went to reside with her daughter in the South Island and authorised her son (defendant) to carry on for her during her absence, or until otherwise determined, the farming operations of the section. The following stock and plant was on the farm: 12 cows, 2 milk cans, 2 pigs, 50 fowls and ducks; and household furniture, the contents of the dwelling on the section. It was agreed that defendant should live on the farm rent free as remuneration for his services and that he should pay all the nett proceeds of the farm to plaintiff. Defendant had paid to plaintiff from February, 1931, to the date of the claim not more than £SO. In or about July, 1934, plaintiff requested defendant to vacate the land and hand over possession but defendant had declined. Plaintiff thus claimed possession of the land, the stock and equipment; £IOO for profits derived by defendant from the farming operations from February 1, 1931, to the present time; the costs, and such further relief as the Court might consider fit.

The statement of defence admitted plaintiff’s ownership of the farm, stating that for many years past defendant had worked it under a contract. It was stated that for many years prior to 1927 defendant had, except with such assistance as plaintiff had been able to render, entirely carried out the work on the farm and had devoted all his wages as an employee of the Rongotea Co-operative Dairy Factory, Ltd., and any other earnings, toward the upkeep and impro.vement of the farm, the upkeep of the household, and payment of interest which fell due from time to time in respect of mortgages on the property, and also to assist in the reduction of the principal of such mortgages. Early in 1928 plaintiff was informed by defendant that he intended to marry his present wife. _ An agreement was then orally entered into, by which defendant continued to work and manage the farm as theretofore, a home being provided for, plaintiff and her aged husband, and that plaintiff would execute a will devising and bequeathing to _ defendant the whole of the farm, subject to the payment after the death of plaintiff by

defendant of £IOO to each of bis two sisters.

Defendant, it was stated, had faithfully performed the terms of the contract and was willing and ready to carry it out in its entirety. Shortly after defendant’s marriage he was told by plaintiff that a will had been executed in the terms of the contract. Defendant denied that he had been requested by plaintiff to vacate the farm to her, and said that he had paid to or for the plaintiff all the profits from the farm and had offered to account for, if necessary, all moneys received by him and paid by him for or on account of plaintiff, and also for all his personal earnings and for any moneys expended by him on account of himself or of any member of his family. HEARING OF EVIDENCE. In evidence, defendant said his wages had gone into tlio home before his marriage. About 1927 witness took over the (full management ,of the farm. Plaintiff agreed that defendant should receive all moneys, pay all accounts, reduce the principal of the mortgage and provide her with a home until her death, while defendant was ho improve the property to his own satisfaction. At plaintiff’s death defendant was to pay each of his sisters £IOO, the property to become his. As far as witness knew, the arrangements were set out in an agreement, but witness had never signed it and had not seen it. A friend, however, had assured him that the document had been made out. When witness told his mother of his engagement to be married she had said for him to carry on as he had done before. Witness’s wife was to assist in the house and in the milking. Witness had carried out his section of the agreement. Before witness’s.marriage the mortgage on the property had been £550 and it had been reduced now to £175. All interest, rates and taxes had been paid by witness. In that period, from tile time when he took control, witness had allowed his mother a certain amount of money for her own use. She had not been extravagant and lia.d always had what money she required. Witness detailed improvements effected to the farm since he had taken over the management of it. The butterfat returns from July, 1928, to June, 1934, amounted to £966 13s 8d gross. Plaintiff now received all the dairy factory cheques and had done so since August. Witness’s sister, Mrs McNicol had arrived about March 20 and her husband about four months later. Mr McNicol did not work at the farm. Cross-examined, witness said the average income over the six years from the farm had been a.bout £l7O a year. Witness doubted if there would be a surplus after paying all outgoings. Charles Joseph Fox, a former neighbour of defendant, gave evidence of accompanying plaintiff to a lawyer’s office in connection with the drawing up of a will. In that will the farm went to defendant on plaintiff’s death. It was to be her home while she lived. Plaintiff had told witness that there was an agreement between her and her son that she was to leave the property to him and that he was to carry on the farm during her life and maintain the home. When witness knew that the will devising the farm to defendant had been made he told defendant “that things had been fixed up satisfactorily” but did not disclose the contents of the will, doing that some two yea.rs later. Frank Norman Bell, farmer, of Papatoetoe, said in evidence that defendant’s wife was his daughter. Plaintiff had told him, when he lived at Glen Oroua, that defendant wa.s to take over the property as she was becoming too old. The case was then adjourned until 10.30 a.m. to-day.