SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 5734, 1 November 1905, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

LAND TRANSFER REGISTRATIONS. . H<s' Honor tho Ciiief Justice, sitting in Chambers .yesterday, gave judgment in the case of Welters ■ and others v. ■Riddiford, in which Mr D. AI. Findlay appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Myers lc . defendant. His Honor said this originating summons raised the question how far registration under the Hand Transfer Act, 1885, gave a registered proprietor a complete and irrefragable title.' The plaintiffs had a registered lease, and it was admitted that this lease ought not to have been registered. It was a lease in violation ■of the provisions of the Native Land Court Act, 1894. and its amendments. he Native Land Court had, however, thought fit to confirm the lease, and tho act stated that a confirmation order Under the seal of the Native Land Court should bo “conclusive evidence that the instrument in respect of which suoh order is made is not in contravention of section 117 of tho Native Land Court Act, 1894, or of section 5 of the Native Land Laws Amendment Act, 1895.” The Land Transfer Department had registered the lease, although on its face it showed that a lease of that, area was contrary to law. His Honor said the ■cases of the consolidated appeals of the Assets Company v. Mere Roihi and others laid down the rule that in the absence of fraud by the person who obtained _ registration, registration was conclusive, and conferred a good title on the registered owner. In this case :it could not be suggested that the lessees did anything but get the Registrar to register an invalid lease, which however, had been confirmed by the Native Land Court. There was no misrepresentation made to the District Land Registrar, and no suggestion of actual fraud or dishonesty. Tho question, therefore, arose: Can this case’be distinguished from tho decisions in the Assets Company cases? His Honor was of opinion it could not, and that the plaintiffs must succeed. The matter Was one which tho defendant was justified in bringing before tho Court, and his Honor, therefore, ordered that each party should pay his own costs. A WANGANUI WILL CASE. His Hanoi - tho Chief Justice yesterday delivered his reserved judgment in Rio matter of the will of the late Robert Pharazyn and the case of Izard and Jellicoe v. Lloyd. His Honor said that tho late Robert Pharazyn by Ids will provided for an annuity to Mrs Jessie Worgan “during her life for the maintenance of herself and of such of her unmarried daughters as for tho tune being bo living with her, an annuity or yearly sum of £IOO by equal quarterly payments.” Mis Worgan and ner unmarried daughters assigned this annuity to Air Lloyd in trust, to pay er creditors. When her creditors had ooen paid she yas to get the annuity trustees now raised tho question whether tho annuitants, Airs Jessie Worgan and her unmarried, (laughters, could assign tho annuity, as it was for the maintenance of herself ■ana of such of her unmarried daughters. etc.” His'Honor held that if the assignment had been made to the defendant without tho consent of the unmarried daughters, ho doubted even thou whether there would be any objection to the assignment. Tho .words ho had. quoted only pointed out' the object of tho annuity; in his Honor’s opinion, they did not raise a trust for the unwarned daughters. But tho annuitant and her daughters had all joined in the assignment, and his Honor saw in the will no restraint upon them doing so. Therefore, tho assignment was valid. Tho costs of tho summons would be paid l;y the residuary estate, and they wore fixed at £-1 -Is "for each

party, with of service and disbursements. Judgment accordingly. Mr JellicoG appeared for the trustees and Mr Von Huast for the Assignee.