LAND TRANSFER DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16309, 16 August 1916, Page 5

LAND TRANSFER DISPUTE.

PURCHASE FROM NATIVES. SUPREME COURT ACTIOS. A loxg-staxdikg action reiatine to a land deal on a block near Miranda, in. the Thames Valley, occupied the civil division of the Auckland Supreme Co-art yesterday afternoon before Mr. Justice Stringer. The plaintiff was Alice G rah an. a married woman, of Hamilton (Mr. If. P. Richmond) and the defendant Robert Coxhead, formerly a farmer at Waita karuru, and now residing in Auckland (Mr. H. H. Ostler). The plaintiff, in the statement of claim, stated that in 1897 she purchased from certain aboriginal natives 234 a 2r 9 3-10p, and that she paid the consideration for such purchase. Although equitably entitled to the land, she was unable to obtain a registerable transfer. The defendant had for some years past been, occupying the land a s tenant of the plaintiff. The latter agreed with the defendant that he should act as agent for the plaintiff, and obtain a transfer of the laud to himself, and pay the expenses. The defendant obtained the transfer, and a certificate of title was issued in hi 3 favour. The plaintiff had frequently requested the defendant to execute in her favour a transfer of the land, and had always been ready to pay whatever moneys were duo. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed: (1) That the defendant forthwith execute in her favour a proper and registerable transfer of the land free from encumbrances. (2) That the defendant supply the plaintiff ■with a detailed account of the expenses incurred by him in obtaining the transfer. (3) For such further and other relief as in the circumstances may be just. The defendant admitted in the statement of defence that the plaintiff, in or about 1897, paid a certain sum of money to the aboriginal owners, but alleged that the transfer of the land was not confirmed by the Native Land Department, and that the plaintiff lost the moncv s.i paid. Later on a lease from the nativeto the defendant was obtained. The defendant admitted siting a lease, wherebv he became the tenant of' the plaintiff but stated that shortly after entering into such lease—the plaintiff bean; without title— native owners threatened to eject the detendant, and he, to protect a house and improvements erected, acquired a lease from the native owner's Mr Richmond placed the plaintiff - - case before the Court, and read a nun-'- • of letter* that had passed on the dispute. ills Honor asked the amount of t'-,. consideration of the transfer. Mr. .Richmond replied that it vm£42o. Mr. Ostler remarked that the defendant was still willing to make the transfer. His Honor: But there would have :.. be a proper account rendered. Mr. Ostler said that for four or live years there had never been anv offer t > pav money, and in the meantime the -and had gone up in value. Mr. Richmond rejoined that (he d.fendant had always been trviu • U, avoj.i his trusteeship. The further h-arins of the c =,> ~.. . adjourned until this moroin?. • ' 1