NATIVE LEASEHOLD

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10886, 28 April 1921, Page 5

NATIVE LEASEHOLD

ANOTHER AUCKLAND DISPUTE. The appellant was John Dillicar and the respondents Walter E. West and W. McMullen, both of Auckland. This was an appeal from the judgment delivered by Mr Justice Hosking on July 29th, 1919, and a further order made under judgment on December 15th, 1920. The facts were that John Dillicar, the appellant, purchased in December, 1910, from a man named Skipper, an undivided half-share in a native leasehold at Wbakatane, containing 640 acres. On (May 9th, 1912, the appellant authorised a land agent named Limbrick to find a purchaser for this land. Limbrick found the respondents, who entered into a contract with them to sell Dillicar half of the land to them on behalf of Skipper. The appellant, aDillioar, refused to be bound by the agreement. Meantime, unknown to the appellant, the respondents were paying rent to Skipper to pay to Maoris, and the respondents considered that they had purchased the land. In May, 1914, the respondents resold their interest in the land to two other purchasers. Tho appellant, hearing of this, wrote to the respondents, notifying them that the land was his, and that they had no interest in it. The respondents replied, through their solicitors, claiming that they relied on the agreement made with Skipper. The appellants heard nothing further from respondents till March, 1919, when they issued a writ against him, claiming specific performance of the agreement, or, in the alternative, heavy damages. Upon the case coming before Mr Justice Hosking, Hia Honour held that, as the appellant did not notify the respondents that he had repudiated the agreement made by Limbrick, the appellant was estopped from denying that he had authorised the agreement, and was bound thereby. From this decision the appellant was-now appealing. Mr H. H. Ostler (Auckland) appeared for the appellant, and Mr A. H. Johnston (Auckland) for the respondent. Lengthy argument took place on a point raised by counsel for the respondents as to whether the appeal should not be disallowed as not being brought within the prescribed time. The court reserved judgment on the point, and adjourned till this morning.