DISPUTE OVER FARM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20960, 25 August 1931, Page 12

DISPUTE OVER FARM.

QUESTION OF POSSESSION. : / , INVOLVED LEGAL POSITION. COURT DECLARATION SOUGHT. ) A dispute over possession of a farm of 152 acres- at Hunua, came before Mr. Justice Smith in the Supremo Court yesj terday. The plaintiffs were Albert P. Ilargreaves and Allan Kenneth Paterson, of Auckland, farmers (Mr. Quartley and Phillips),, and they made their claim ■Against Dr. Edmund Sprague Dukes, of 'Auckland, and Leslie Houchen, of Hunua, farmer (Mr. Hunt). By agreement of June 17, 1930, it was stated, Dr. Dukes as mortgagee sold n property at Hunua to A. K. Paterson, /for £1750, and Paterson became entitled 'to possession on that date. On September 15 Paterson agreed to sell the land to Albert Hargreaves, who entered into possession and made a share-milking agreement wit'll Houchen. It was alleged bv plaintiffs that on March 7 Dr. Dukes wrongfully entered on the land and took '""possession of it, putting the defendant, Leslie Houchen, into physical possession either as tenant or agent-. Hargreaves claimed that he had been of the rents and profits of the property, and sought a declaration from the Court- that ho was entitled to possession of the land, to £IOO damages, and that accounts should be taken be- . ,'tween him and the defendants. In addition, a declaration was sought that the agreement Juno 17, 1930, was in full ■ force and effect. The defendants claimed that Houchen had been lawfully in possession of the property since September 8, 1930, and / that Ilargreayej v was not entitled to the rents and profits from it. ill". Quartley said the action arose out of a vendor wrongfully entering and dispossessing a purchaser and a sub-pur-chaser. The facts were simple, but the law was somewhat difficult and to some extent new. He thought this was the first caso in New Zealand of a sub-pur-chaser asking for rights before the Court. Counsel argued that Dukes and Houchen were working together all along in order to oust Hargreaves and Paterson. Hie re-entry on the land was illegal because the notice requiring certain work to be done was invalid, or if valid to any extent, plaintiffs had complied with it. Mr. Hunt submitted that Dr. Dukes' only interest was to protect his mortgage. The action, counsel contended, was largely one of trespass. He would p raise the question whether Hargreaves could support a plea for a declaration that he was entitled to possession as against Duk>s. There was the further question whether the plaintiffs, having merely an equitable title, could proceed in the action for possession of the land. His Honor, without expressing any final opinion, stated that, he thought that the only common ground of Paterson and Hargreaves in ' the claim was for a declaration that the agreement between Dukes and Paterson was subsisting. In his opinion the notice served on Hargreaves wis not service on Paterson. Hearing was then adjourned until this morn-ng.