SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12196, 22 July 1925, Page 4

SUPREME COURT

NATIVE LAND TANGLE NEGOTIATIONS DRAG ON FOR YEARS SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE DECREED Reserved judgment in the case of Thomas Hillard v. George Bevan was given in the Sapreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff in this Case was, prior to 1007, ffessee of a parcel of native land containing 50 acres and known as Ohau 8, section 18a. The lessor’s name was Ransfield. Defendant purohased the land from Ransfield, and thereafter plaintiff paid the rent (£2O per annum) to defendant. In May, 1907, defendant offered to sell the freehold of this land to plaintiff for £4OO. Plaintiff accepted the offer, and on May 11th, 1907, a contract to this effect was entered into, plaintiff paying £2OO in cash. The agreement was lost, hut its terms were admitted by defendant, with the exception that he says that plaintiff was to pay for the cost of completing the title. As the plaintiff bad paid the full value for the land; however, the court held that the agreement was one for sale and purchase of the freehold only. Shortly after this, plaintiff paid a further £IBO, and on June 6th, 1907, received a receipt as for the full purchase-money. From that date plaintiff had been continually asking defendant to complete his title, but had been put off. |t appeared that Bevan did really have some difficulty in completing liis own title, and it was not until March 22nd, 1915, that this was completed-. In the meantime he had mortgaged the land to Murray, Roberts and Co., and in 1923 he gave a further mortgage to the New Zealand Fanners’ Distributors’ Company, Ltd. As a defence to the action, defendant (besides certain legal defences) set up the following defence of fact: “In or about the year 1907 the plaintiff was negotiating with the defendant for the purchase of the land. During the course of the negotiations it was discovered fjjat the title of the defendant’s vendor was defective, and a large sum of money would have to be expended in perfecting the defendant’s title. The defendant told the plaintiff of this, and the agreement was thereupon discharged by mutual consent.’’ “The plaintiff had then paid the defendant the sum of £3BO, and it was agreed that, instead of the defendant repaying that sum in cash, the plaintiff should remain in occupation of the land as tenant at a rental of 15s per acre,'which rent should not be paid in Posh, but should be deducted every year from the sum owing by defendant to.the plaintiff; that.when opportunity offered the defendant should sell the land and out of the proceeds pay the plaintiff the balance then owing, with interest at the rate of £8 per centum per annum calculated upon the balance from year to year outstanding. Since the year 1907 the plaintiff has been, and still is, in possession of the land under the terms of - the arrangement. The defendant has not yet been able to sell the-land.*’ A number of legal points were also raised. His Honour, in his judgment, said: y-In my opinion, all the defences which have been raised must fail, and plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the contract. X. accordingly decree specific performance in plaintiff’s favour, Sad I give defendant three weeks from trie date of the judgment in which to dear his iitle and transfer the land to plaintiff. Rut it may be that defendant cannot make a title in that time, and in that case plaintiff should be entitled alternatively to damages for defendant’s breach of contract, such damages to be assessed at £SOO. Damages as on a claim for this amount were allowed.