SUPREME COURT CASES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11366, 13 November 1922, Page 2

SUPREME COURT CASES

£609 DAMAGES FINDING OF COURT IN GREYTOWN DISPUTE. NEGLECTING A PROPERTY. On Saturday, before Mr Justice Hoskin# and a jury of twelve, Eliza Jane Gallagher, of Greytown, represented by Mr ii. Hart, continued an action against William Walker Bicknell, also of Greytown, for the sum of £I2OO damages. The defendant was represented by Mr A. Blair, and with him was Mr J. F. Thompson, ot Greytown. The statement of claim set forth that the -plaintiff had leased to the defendant for three years from October let, 1914, a block of 194 acres at Greytown. In this lease, it was alleged, t’he defendant covenanted to keep in #ood repair all buildings, fences, and hedges on the property. It was also agreed that ha‘should cut down and grub all noxious weeds on the property, and that the leseor should pay one-half of the cost of this work, provided that proper accounts and vouchers were produced. , It was alleged that the defendant had committed breaches of these covenants, had neglected to keep the buildings* fences, etc., in good repair, and had failed to destroy all noxious weeds on the land. Notices of these ’breaches had been (given him by the plaintiff on February 11th, 1921, and September 13th, 1921; but lie had failed to remedy them. On October Ist, 1921, the defendant gave up possession oi the property, and the buildingß were not in good order and tenable condition, and it would require a large sum >of money to restore them. The plaintin's reversion, it was alleged, had depreciated in value very considerably. Also, the plaintiff claimed that on October 21st last defendant . had wrongfully removed from the .land 1000 fencing posts, which had been split upon the land, and belonged to the plaintiff, and also on various occasions during hie lease had wrongfully removed various fencing materials and soil. Therefore, plaintiff claimed £7OO special damages for the estimated cost of executing repairs, possession of the fencing posts, or £IOO if possession could not bo had, £2OO for fencing materials, Mil, etc., alleged to be removed, and £3OO general damages and costs. The jury retired late, in the afternoon, and returned at 5.40 -p.m. with a verdict of £623 damages for the plaintiff. The question of costs was deferred until today.

FAMILY PROTECTION ACT DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE. ORDER BY THE COURT. Judgment was. delivered yesterday by Mr Justice Reed in connection with an origination summons under the Family Protection Act, 1918, the parties being -Florence Josephine Foot and the Publio Trustee; The testatrix wa6 survived by 'her widower and the following children: Alice Eimily Foot. Violet Cecilia Foot, Augustus Francis Foot, Katie Ethel Nelson, Eily Augusta Foot, and Florence Josephine Foot. The will made no provision for the widower, and provided for the distribution of the estate as follows: Violet. Cecilia Foot and Eily Augusta Foot took the leasehold property and the furniture in the estate equally between them; Eily Augusta Foot also took certain freehold'-lpfoperty- To Kate Ethel Nelson and ’■Aii£Ugt‘u.4 Francis Foot were left the policies of life insurance, and to Alico Emily Foot (a Roman Catholic nun) wae left a sum of £SO to spendon masses for the deceased. There was no disposition of the residue. No (provision was made for the plaintiff. The widower made ho claim. In the course of hie judgment, His Honour said it’ was with the assistance of tho leasehold properties that he -proposed to render the ‘ distribution of the estate more equitable. “With this end in view, I assess the annual value of the property received by Eily Augusta at £BO per annum, and that of Violet Cecilia at £3 10s per annum, and I propose to make tho interest of the three daughters equal,’’ said the judge. "From the revenue derived from the leasehold properties during the lifetime of the widower, the -plaintiff shall be -paid an annual amount of £2O. and Violet Cecilia £l6 10s, and the balance of the revenue shall be paid, to the widower, Augustus Frederick Foot. Upon his death the leasehold properties shall be sold, and the proceeds thereof shall be divided as follows- There shall ho first paid to the plaintiff the sum of £345, then to Violet Cecilia the sum of £287, and the balance shall be equally divided between the three daughters, namely, the plaintiff, Violet Ceeilih and Eily Augusta. Costs of all parties shall be taxed and paid out of the estate. The debts in the estate and such taxed costs and expenses shall be a first chaTge on the cash and accrued and accruing rent, and all other legacies are exonerated from any liability in respect of such debts, costs, and expenses' A formal order, in accordance with the above judgment, should be drawn up by the parties, and if they are unable to agree as to its terms, it could be submitted to the court to settle. Leave was given to all parties to apply. At the 'hearing, Mr Kennedy appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Rose for the Fublic Trustee, and Mr Hay for other members of the family.