LAND BOARD.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9904, 24 November 1893, Page 5 (Supplement)

LAND BOARD.

Xhe Otago Land Board hold a meeting at 1] a.m. yesterday. Present: The Comjeissionei of Crown Lands, and Messrs Clark, Dallas, Duncan, and M'Kgmow. Messra Brown and Fletcher? applied for a license bo occupy section. 113, block V, Shotover district, for pastoral purposes.—£hs board granted a year's license for pastoral purposes, under section 116 of the aefc, at £1 per acre, with license fee £1 Is. Mr F. X Birley asked to "be allowed time to pay arrears due upon S.L. 1050, Upper Wfcka< tipu district.—lt was resolved that the ■applicant be informed that if the rent is paid before the 31st December the board will reconsider the question of forfeiture. The Naseby Warden reported upon sections 2, 3, and 4, block VIII, Blackstone district, and the board was requested to determine as to how the sections should now bs dealt with.—lt was recommended that the Governor should declare the sections open as n. small grazing run at 6d per acre. A report was received 'from Ranger Hughan an Mr W. B. Robb's application for a license to occupy section 3, blockXlV,' Oamaru district — Tho license was granted for a year for pastoral purposes under section 116 of the act, at £1 per annum per acre, with license fee £1 Is. Ranger Fraser reported on Mr Jolm In'nes's application to be allowed to acquire section 69 block 111, Benger district.—lt was resolved that Mr Innes be aUowed to acquire the section ■ ander section 115 of act for cash, at £2 per lore.—Resolution No. 4 of 27th. September last rescinded so far as it refers to the section in juestion. Ranger Mackenzie reported on the improve--: nents on runs Nob. 19 and 3*6, Wakatipu, andsuggested upset rentals. The board was1! requested to determine how the land was to be ' iealt with.~The consideration of the matter was deferred for- a fortnight. A request was made to the board to rescind ;he forfeiture of deferred-payment licenses \ Tos. 6177 and 2052, as all "arrears had now seen paid.—The previous resolution forfeiting ;he licenses was rescinded,.all having seen paid. The Receiver of Land Revenue' reported that ieferred payment exchange license No. 502 exaired in June 1891 (section;S, block XV, Crookiton district, Donald Gutm), and that the icensee had failed to pay the outstanding balance of price of, t*sa section.—lt was relolved that as tha. licenses in question have 'xpired and the licensees are therefore holding 3o title to occupy the land, they be notified to ?ay up the balance of tl eir instalments within me month from date, otherwise the Crown ands ranger will be instructed to take pos;ession of the latud and value the improvements, vitb. the view of the land being offered for lale. following applications were approved : ?or rural land en lease in perpetuity, 2001— SViiliam Clark, section 47a, block 111, Cromvell district. Small grazing run, 2004—John ienry M'Leod, run No. 203 a, blocks VIII and X, Swinburn district. The exchange perpetual lease for lease in >erpetuifcy 607, John Weir, sections 3 and 5, >lock IX, Manioitoto district; 1079, Lwinia «Veir, section 16, block V, Manieteto district; >75, S. Fennessey, section 20, block Vl,' ximmerburn district; S. Fennessey, section 23..' ilock VI, Gimmerburn district. ! The following applications were approved for 'lllage homestead allotments on lease in per>etuity :-Helen Wilson, 6 to 9 and 17, block « nY:, 6to M' 16 t0 20- block XXVII, town if Molyneux; Joaiah Wilson, 6 to 14, 16 18 l 5 block XXIII, 11 to 14, block XXV, to^nof ' slolyneux. ■ M) E;^.- Amies applied for a license under ecsion 116 of the act to occupy section 23, block M, Maniototo district. The license was ;canted ior a year for pastoral purposes uud»r _ection 116, at a rental of 17s per acre, with icensefee, £1 Is. The Balmoral Road Board forwarded a stafcenenfc and plan showing upon what roads it was ateaded to expend "thirds" and "fourths" jeerued from the 30th of January last to the -v ? g, ' The roadlines were approved Ihe following applications under section 115 I I.? Land Act 1892" were considered : —J S.. Mafcheson, 615 acres on run No 206f • C S. Douglas, 590 acres on run No. 206p ' It ■/as resolved Shat-fke applications ba forwarded othe chief surveyor for consideration of disiOGF SUrVeyGl" rrhea eSsctMg survey of run Tiie board. Hiien adjourned. SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, November 23. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) His Honor took his seat in court at 10 30 i.m. MILLS AND OTHEKS V. ISAAC AND OTHERS • The hearing of argument in this case 'was esumed. Mr Sim replied on behalf of the defendants Mr Isaac also addressed the court on his own >ehalf. Mr Mouat then replied on behalf of. the nfant defendants. His Honor reserved judgment. KEER V. KERR AND OTHERS. In this case Annie Elizabeth Kerr is plaintiff md Robert Kerr, Joha Fraser Macqueen fraser, and Charles Kieranus Kerr defendants. Che plaintiff seek? to have a deed of settlenent, made on the 3td February 1892, declared lot to be bmdiug on the plaintiff, and that the laid deed may be set aside and cancelled ; that ihe right to call for and receive certain deb°nures, and the moneys represented by the same, >r otner the moneys assi fi ned by the said deed )f settlement, may be vested in the plaintifi • Hid that the plaintiff may have such further or Dther relief as the nature of the case may •equire or the court may consider her mtitled to. The statement of claim set forth that under md by virtue of the marriage contract of her parents, the plaintiff (formerly Annie Biizabeth Miller but now the wife of the defendant Robert Kerr) became and was on and before the 26th August 1886 absolutely entitled in possession to one-fourth share of certain funds settled thereby. The plaintifi was also at that time absolutely entitled in possession to a legacy of £500 bequeathed to her by her uncle, Charles Miller hen deceased. By a declaration of trust dated he 26th and 30th August 1886, made between the plaintiff, then Annie Biizabeth Miller of the one part; and the Rev. James Do'dds (doctor oi divinity), John Stevenson (coaltnaster), and the Rev. Robert Stevenson, he plaintiff assigned to them upon certain trusts the said one-fourth share and also the said.legacy. This deed was revoked on the 15th September 1891. At the time of the revocation the funds then remaining consisted of the sum of £1976 invested iv various stocks, shares, and debentures, a. sum cf £500 having ia anticipation of such ' revocation being previously paid to the plain- ' biff. On February 3, 1892, a deed of settle- ' ment was executed by the plaintiff between ' the defendant Robert Kerr of the first part, the ' plaintiff of the second; part, aud the defendants ! John Fraser Macqueen Fraser, and Charles ! Kieranus Kerr of the third part, whereby the ' plaintiff, with the privity and consent of the J Baid Robert Kerr, assigned to the defendants, ) J. F. M. Fraser and Charles Kieranus Kerr, their executors, administrators, and assigns, the { sum of £1200, part of the said sum of £1976, 1 upon_ certain trusts, and with and subject to • certain conditions, provisions, and declarations. \ The trustees were to pay ths income of the I trust funds to the plaintiff duriDg her life . for her sole and separate uso, and after- . wards to her husband should' he survive ' her, towards the support of and main- r tenance of himself and any children born ? of the marriage. At the time of the execution i of the deed of settlement the only fuuds avail- . able for the purposes of the said settlement i wero represented by three debentures of the l; Security Mortgage and Trust Company of ? Canada, of the nominal value of £500, and a debenture of the New Zealand Loan and ° Mercantile Company (Limited) for £500. * These debentures were believed by the plaintiff to be worth their aggregate nominal or full J value, and the deed of settlement was executed by her on the faith aad footing of such belief, 6 but the debentures were not then or now worth v their nominal value and could not now be *" realised except at a very considerable loss. s The plaintiff did not at the time of the execu- V tion by her of the deed of settlement under- '! stand the true nature, purport, and effect * thereof, but had executed the same in ignore ance. There had not been any child born of * tho marriage of the plaintiff with the defendant r Robert Kerr. r The defendants J. F. M. Fraser and Charles 'J Kierauus Kerr ia their statement of de- fc fence declare that, so far as regards the allega- c that made by the plaintiff that she did not at * the time of tho execution by her of the said h deed of settlement understand the true nature s purport, and effect thereof, but executed the r same in ignorance of such nature, purport and r efteet, defendants took all ordinary pre- fc cautions and care to inform the plaintiff of the t contents and effect of the said deed of settle- v ment, and the plaintiff apparently understood ° the same. p W ™dbouse a PPeafed for the plaintiff, d aud Mr Platts for the defendants. ™Thf, P!eadiQgs having been opened by Mr E Woodhouse, the following evidence was given •— Annie Elizabeth Kerr, the plaintiff, deposed • lam the wife of Mr Robert Kerr. I was 1 entitled to about £3000 under my parents' a marriage contract iv Scotland. I made a deed r of settlement to my trnstees, and came out to t New Zealana about five years ago. I received V the income from the trustees after coming to V New Zealand 1 was married just before the t ISewYear ab<nu\three years ago. After I waa c .named, I instructed Mr Fraser to apply for f

! S yS ' T Latf on l wrote t0 my soli«t« I^'Sh™ f* m-° ne7 fr°m Mr FlaSer » Ifom ™ *" . recei7 ed so«»o of the principal ■ n c lA 7, trustees in 1891. I kep t that S mTh tt', M" 9 h«I«» Kerr, one of the trustees, is : husband's brother. He advised me to tie my money U p That was his idea from the fnf- Hed, ldnfe offer to be a trustee. I agreed Hot U? What, WaS lefb of the caPifcal fZT' to A T ke a deed of settlement. Mr Eraser and Mr Charles Kerr had all to say ia £?4^ flmen *' * talked t0 Mr F'aser about it thl f t ulS^ d my name- Mr Frafier suggested that I should go to Mr HosW I don't re rial 6 TPreVI<?? S BeMei»er>t before my marby applying to the trustees. Under the Si p could get the capital, and I thought I could do the same under the lasb deed. I thought the 3r7 " Tffi fr°m my husba"d«d hfa S f i di d Dofc ™&«»tand that I svould not be able to touch the capital o^ w th^^ y hußband or his Sors :ould nob touch the capital. I had never any H7»? «P the capital so thSKSd lot touch it ]f I wanted it. I cou'd not W lS r- BtOTV°r d r" H°SkiD?' S I signed foe iced m Mr Fraser's office, and it was attested ■xplanation being given to me by Mr Fra«er enether my husband was with me. I fl rs fc hrel^nnfh 1 Ct>Uld unofc Bet the capital about ° tbls c. aPifcal and expected to get hJ J 3er.f- aid his M«*eqner was 0%. Eraser M* ff"* m°ney before from Mr Wffis,L?,l^ rS Oneyhad come «»* from The plaintiff was not cross-examined. ft Bl S« deposed: lam the husband of ! efentt ? **"* aCti°n and one «f the S d2 te-. I, was present with Mrs Kerr hen Bhe sped the deed in question. I a l S o , igned. I know nothing at all abnuf if r nderstoodthat the monfy S»tMupt Lt i 13^^^^ «*****» aingSvoS lainillf-o«ofthedeed The witness was not cross-examined ir n f AS the Plaintiff's case. Mr Platts said the trustees had taken all care "s Ted 'Tf l eStl d *° the ™«onTf is deed. In fact, they had taken very nusual precautions, for reasons which Mr raser would explain in evidence. Aftergiving ken nCwith SboW*hf th? g^^st c a re § waf is HS?fcands? ed> th° °aSe W°Uld be leffc in Mr J P. M Eraser, solicitor, deposed that acted as sohcitor for Mrs Kerr'from early in ?sL* ! ¥ d fuadß at Home» which she rv i d tfci« g1 out^ ere- She coild e^him emPd ft?hi nformatl°n on subject. She emed to have very hazy notions of how much oney she had how she held it, and where it ,>t Uallyf He W^° te t0 his aSenfc at Home idifcwas discovered where the money was %L£ 9h CTy P°- Or ideaß about business atters She was impulsive, and subject to rmed of'mJT^ Ffom the opinion he • an thl*ns- KeTt be took more ; an tne ordinary precautions with regard to : c execution of the deed, and therefore he nsidered it advisable to send her to a Sreful achtioner The deed was drafted in mT it rf? Br S) office ' and wa S sent Mr Hoskmg. The draft contained power of revocation. He Plained pable of understanding it. The engrossed fi? 11 fen d °Ver, y him t0 Ke" his b trouble that had been taken-the same Ik£ -Z^ the deed was executed^ h s, Kerr swd(!o h»a she eupposed she could b, the m«»V any time she wanted it. He d her she could not, but she did not seem fff ?fM °W matt, erS stood- Immediately the settlement pkintifiE and her husb.nd ™ *° Scotland and Ireland, and returned to , , h /u Gy applied for the money ) money had been received, as the deeS m f gu f s«oa had not beea realised? He ' d them that it the trustees had the money ma impossible for them to get it. Mrs Ken imed very muc h aggrieved! It was imposle to make her understand the matter. She kbd about going to Mr Garew and havin" 3 whole thing settled up, and said othe? ngs which showed she did not possess the t frf Shs a f T ared ?° have- told Mrs "hi S I felfc aggrieved the proper thing her to do wm co bring an action to set asid? in h" V6U d, UnDg the Prograss of the ; iod she did and said things which showed it it was impossible to make her understand y matters of business Sk.! ng!vrSol^t0r' de P°sed he was united by Mrs Kerr with regard to a deed settlement. She afterwards came to his ice with Mr Fraser. He explained to her \ no™vocability of the deed. He exaned the whole matter to her, not in legal, j, m popular language, and she signed a ter agreeing to the deed as it was finally TiX™? ex« e- uted- He eot her fc° a I l° r .hls own Protection. She Pflar6^ a^ the "^ t0 undewfcand the nature the deed, and ho was very particular in .laming its non-irrevocability to her in the mest language he could use. This was all the evidence Uter counsel had briefly addressed the lis Honor pronounced judgment as follows :- f this settlement had been made for valuable .sideration, it would have been hopeless fo? i plaintiff upon the present evidence to ask I l°?f^ et I(l/ Side on the §round that she v 1 not fully understand its provisions By executing it, after having been advised of its terms by an independent solicitor, she would have led the other parties to suppose that she did understand it, and she could not afterwards, as against them when valuable consideration had passed from them, he heard to say that she did not understand it. The settlement, here however, is a purely voluntary oue, and different; considerations apply. If ft appear thafc fch settlor at the time of making the settlement did not, as a matter of fact, fully understand its terms, she is entitled to the relief she asks. Whether or no the burden of proving whether the settlor perfectly understood the nature of his act lies upon the person interested under the settlement, is not absolutely ■?% i "Jt ISr^V There -is authority cited by Mr Woodhouse that it does so lie, a"d **?" are also cases to the same effect rated in May on 'Voluntary Conveyances,' p 485. Whichever way, however, the burden of proof lies, the court has to bo satistied upon the evidence that the settlor really did understand the provisions of the instrument she was executing. On the whole, I am not satisaed that she did understand it. She had at an earlier date, executed another settlement' and when she wanted to iind what was settled under that settlement she asked for it and got it. That is a reason why she should have supposed that under the present settlement she would have been in a similar position. Further, _ the idea of the present settlement did not emanate from herself but from Mr Charles Kerr and Mr Fraaer, who thought it was for her own and her husband's interest that the money should be put out of their reach. The casa, therefore, is different from one where the settlor himself conceives the idea of settlement and himself gives instructions as to what the terms of the settlement are to be. No doubt the terms of the settlement were explained to Mrs Kerr by Blr Fraser and by MrHosking, and were most carefully explained, and I have no doubt Mr HoskiQg carefully explained to her the provision in the settlement which mado the settle- i ment irrevocable. Mr Fraser, however, had had a good deal of experience of the character of the settlor, and from what he says it seems to me to be fairly conceivable that although all this trouble was taken to iuforin her of its provisions, yet she really paid very little atteution to wnat was going on. He says that he had the smallest idea of her business capacity, that when she came to him in the first instance she had very hazy notions about her money altogether, and it was on this account he took the precautions he did in the ajlair. Then, there is the further statement by Mr Fraser that immediately after the settlement was executed she said she supposed she could get the capital at any moment. Well, if she had really understood the provisions of the instrument she never would have asked that question Then at a later date she asks Mr Fraser for the money, and Mr Fraser tells her again the exact position of affairs. I think, therefore there is sufficient ground for the court not being satisfied that the settlor did understand she was putting this money not only ont of the reach of her husband and his debts, but comPu? ? ly^ut ? f her own control for all time I think, therefore, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief she seeks, but of course the trustees would be entitled to their charges and expose out of the fund when it comes. Decree aa prayed; costs, charges, and expenses of ThfCW ft Paid, °Ut °f Settled d " next day until 10.30 a.ni

TowP^r'Ti! Si F *f Rawlinson, governor of the armour S° tS &&t *™ of tbe la^t suits of armour which are now in his charge were borrowed by the knights of the Eglifton tournament, aud used by noble lords who entered the lists upon that occasion. Men, he says, must have grown bigger, for with these two exceptions, the coats of mail which were larce enough for the knights of old are all too small tor the latter-day warriors.