TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 14713, 19 September 1918, Page 7

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

Tlie Supremo Court Resumed at 10 a.m. to-day. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF LAND . Rina Rangireremoana, of Muriwai, native ' woninli (plaintiff), v. Thomas Bartlett, j unior, native farmer (defendant) : Claim for possession, of lands and £100 profits thereof. • Tho statement of claim, contended that, defendant on or for some time previous' tft April 23, vras unlawfully m, possession of certain, la-nds. m the Whareongaonga, block, belonging to plaintiff,, and' defendant had retained possession of the sama land. Plaintiff claimed (1) possession of the said lands ; (2) the sum of £100 for profits -thereof from April ' 1918. Defendant denied m his statement of defence (1) the allegation that lie was. unlawfully ;in^possession of the', land*. (2); on tlie Ri'oilhds that he >vas the adopted son of the plaintiff- by^. Maori- custom, and that he and , plaintiff had stood m relation of child- arid parent ; (3) about the momlh of -May,--. 1912,- the plaintiff -had a leasehold interest and invited tho defendant to enter it for his oqjn benefit ; (4) defendant entered /the land m June for the purpose of working it ; (5) hei had continued this with the full knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, and had expended on rfents and improvements a sum not less than £550. i Defendant counter-claimed for' £561 4s 9d, being moneys expended by .him on works and improvements on the property. Mr. Coleman appeared' on behalf 'of the plaintiff, and Mr. Nolan for defendant. Mr. Nolan, m opening the case, said the claim was one . for possession of lands. , Defendant's case was on the. grounds that he was an adopted son of the plaintiff until his marriage; - -when he lived m the neighborhood. In May, 1912, Rina came to visit him at his home at Muriwai. Bartlett had about 60 acres of rural lands.. Plaintiff sugigested he should go on tb.Waipanui (the land m question) of ,271 acres. Bartlett would say that he was expressly invited to occupy the land arid farm, it for himself. Defendant's evidence would be supported by that of 'his ; . wife. In conser quence of thisi suggestion, Bartlett ,sold the 60 acres ntMuriwaii and -in June,' 1912, he went to 'the Waipanui property. Defendant cleared .the 1 land 'from; shrub, fenced it, re-sowed.' considerable portions of it, and effected improvements to the value of over £500. THetfee simple owners consisted of Rina and .'ihtee. '6'tner natives, and she joined with, the other owners, ao. that sne... should secure' fee simple herself.- > Defendant; had p^td >: rent m respect of the land, tout Rina said she did not want him to pay any more. Bart; lett had been treated somewhat harshly m ithe matW. He had worked the pro-; perty and made considerable- improve-, ments, and Rina M&d. ordered him to quit without notice. Counsel contended that Bartlet was entitled to compensation. Defendant, failed to account for the-ex-'traordinary action of the plaintiffs Thomas Bartlett, defendant m, the claim and plaintiff m the counter-claim, said he was the adopted son of plaintiff. His Honor : Is the adoption registered? , . ..■■■:• Mr.' Nolan: It was nn Adoption by native custom :■>■ ■■■■■<■«■• Bartlett «iidi he had beeiv adopted m; earfy infancy arid lived- with Rina. and' her husband until he was married*. ; Bfti had 11 children. He >was Uien ' looking after 60 acres of rural land at Muriwai, and worked -it till 1912. Rina.-Jand her husband, used 1 to coane and see how he was geotihg along and stay tlitora for a week. Waipanui was about 20 jniles, from. Muriwai. When he went on tlie property there wa«i, orxly-.a fence on. tlie, top «ido, «nd a hou^d of one room. Witness erected another hotls© an<l erected fences. Tho moneys spent by witness totalled £517 4s 9d. fLe had spent more than that on improvements iwnicn he had not recorded. Witniess attemp.ted, to come to a settlement when Rina ordered him off ttoo property. She .did not deftiro to com© to a ' (settlement. Witness suggested beliig paid for improvoments aaid she asked' him. to send m the account, wiuich sh« refused' to niie«t. . „:..■. To Mr Colenmn.^ Most of the expense was for fencingsiand .gi'a^sing jabout sis years ago. wlwn lie went on., tile pronerty. He put on 3000 sheep to crush out the f&wt. He borrovyed „.tli© sheep from another sliiti(.u|. ft three years to' do the crushing. ,H» had a strip of 213 acres, of c>ej;r.ed "la,nd'aloingside, but it had since gon« back. He ho 4 Other jntea-ests, ac o-r'e^Ulit. of which he wa^» not altogether depondent An the property for «, living fl-t that time. He put stock oai Waipanui flbont 18 months ago. Xo stock had 'been taken off the property iji the last row weeks. The .property iwas capable of carrying 700 head of sheep. 'It 'would be impossible to run moi^e than about 1£ sheep per acre, therefore jj; was necessai-y'i.to riih the two properties together. : Considering the extra, cost of labor the depreciations Jmd been made up. Portion, of tho ienop yas burnt. When witni?f»s pakl aireaFsi ii> i-#nt m 1915-16 he paid at the rate of about. 2$ flijL jner acre. Mr Coleman : Th© lease st-ip ulatwl the rate at 2s per acre, the capital value being £2 per acre* His Honor : That lease was thrown up. Mr. Coleman ; Still, Riw». was' ejiiJtled to that 2a rent. ' : ' .-. C'iontiniuanff m the ci"oss-exaih lllation, witness said Rima paid the rates. He did not know the tettfne '• of the lease. Witness had this year received a. rate demand. ..,-•■ Keta Bartlett, wife of the previous witness, gave evidence on similar lines. Anj Tiraroa said she Was living with Bartlett before' she married. She heard Rua invite Barrett at the Muriwai place to go to Waipa*>»i ; He sold his Muriwai property, but witness remained at Muriwai. ' Morehu Nui deposed to doing the fencing included m tho schedule of charges put forward by Bartlett. Mr Coleman said he intended jto call the defendant m the oouaitet-iplaina to show what the arrangement really was.