SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14713, 19 September 1918, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

The hearing nf tho case Rdna Rangireremoana v. Thom.-js Bartlett, junior, claim for possession of ]nnd and profits, with counter-claim, was continued j this afternoon. j Rina Rangireremoana, defendant m | the 1 counter-claim, gave evidence that ! Bartlett was brought to them as a small ' boy, and lived with her until the time j of his marriage. So far as tho property was concerned plaintiff mad© a \ suggestion that as she ami- her husband were getting on m years and were unable _to work themselves, he should fence m tho property ©nt of love and friendship. She allowed him to go, and he had done some work on it, but he had refused^ to give the property back. She had paid the rates and survey fees. To Mr. Nolan: She never asked him at any time to go on the land and work it. He told her that after he finished fencing he would po and look for a place for himself. He did not say he wanted payment for the fencing. Plaintiff's story was ciuitet untrue. When the fences were finished he -went and put stock on the property, but she took into consideration that lie had erected the fences. She said nothing to him at all. When witness had to pay the rates and survey liens she told him he had better get off the land. The first year she received the demand for rates he said he would pay it, but the second and third years the demands came m showing the rates unpaid. She did not cnn>i to speak to him about' it again. She did not take these demands and survey liens to him, and he did not say he would pay them when he got his wool m. All Tommy said was "Yes," and he put the demands m his pocket. After, it was fenced her husband went to live on the property. He was going back, giving Tommy a hand. After the notice to quit was servedi on him he did not come and say anything to her. Her lawyer had told her that proposals were made for settlement, but Tommy had never come to her. She knew that before she could do anything with the land she had to get him off it. ' ' < Hemi Pouoru stated that the improvements • now were not like they were when Bartlett went on the land. There was manuka and tuahina covering about one-quarter; It was on the* part Bartlett had partly improved, being scrub land. Plaintiff and defendant, after discussing the arrangements, came to witness. Bartlett asked to be allowed to go on to the place and he consented. After the fences were erected and Stock placed on the land there was no occasion for witness to remain. To Mr Nolan: Bartlett knew that witness held the lease of the land at the time and that was why they came to witness for his consent. He had not talked this case over with Rina. She was going her way and he was goinj? his. " 8 c Mr Nolan proceeded to move forj judgment, intimating that he did not raise the question of jurisdiction. (Proceeding.)