SUPREME COURT.—Civil Sitting.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XLII, Issue 9826, 12 October 1893, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— Civil Sitting.

Wednesday, October 11 — Before His Honor Mr Justice Gonolly. WILLIAM HUMPHRIES V. KABENA TE HA This was a suit for specific performance of an agreement to Bell land, 'lhe defence was a denial of the agreement, and of its suffijiency in law it it existed, and also that the alleged transaction was contrary to equity and good conscience, the purchase nionoy being inadequate. Mr F. W. Richmond appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Roy for the defendant. Mr Richmond briefly opened the case, and called evidence as follows :—: — Win . Humphries : In 1889 I was in treaty with the defendant for the sale of subdivision 34, Puketotara Defend nt was then indebted to E. L. Huinphricb & Son, in which firm I was a partner. Un the 4th July, 1889, he agreed to sell the land for £18. A memorandum of agreement was then drawn by the late Mr H. R Richmond for me. It was interpreted to defendant by the late Mr W. Carrington, a licensed interpreter. Defendant signed it. It is now lost. My firm assigned their assets to Messrs King and Cock. I handed this and some other agreements to them. They declined to take an assignment of these agreements, but did not return the in to me. His Honor then said that further evidence of loss must be given. Mr Richmond called Messrs Cock, R. D. Stuart, Bauchope, and S. W. Shaw, who gave evidence upon this point. His Honor said the ovidence was somewhat vague, but he would now admit evidence of the contents of the agreement. W. Humphries, recalled; The agreement was a short memorandum. It was a simple agreement to sell as soon as a vulid title could be given. I do not remember any special conditions. I have occupied tho land ever since, felled four acres, ploughed and cropped the land. Defendant knew I was doing this. Ho never objected nor demanded any rent. I have paid for the land. Defendant received ciedit for £18 in the firm's ledger, which is now produced. In November last defendant was sued by Mr Corkill, the assignee of the book dobts. I vras called as a witness. Defendant claimed credit for this £18, and said he waß willing to complete the bargain. I gave evidence for tho defendant. Cross-examined : I ha\ c bought land at from £2 to £3s per ecre, and one lot at £4 all in thut block. I cannot say whether ther6 were witnesses, who they were, nor whether there was a plan on the agreement. I left all that to the solicitor. I did not submit it to a Trust Commissioner. I believe it was f-tainpcd with Is. I wus in occupation before the sale, paying 5a per acre rent, taking a lot together, Re examined ; All my transfers Lave been passed by the Trust Commissioner Mr Win. Stuart, R.M and District Land Registrar, pr duced notes of the evidence in the action Corkill v. Karena. Defendant claimed credit for £18 for land s >Id to Humphries. I gave ju igment for the balance of the claim. I produce the certificate of title for section 34 Puketotara. This c'oEed the plaintiff's case. Mr Roy moved for a nonsuit, on tho ground that if thero had been an agreement it was not executed as required by the Natie Lands Frauds Prevention Acts of 1881 and 1888, of which he read teverul sections _~, Mr Richmond replied that the agreement was not an ''instrum nt of alienation,' and contended that the statutes referred to cleaily showed by the words used that they w. re intended to apply to instru moots by which a sale or other disposition had beep actually made. His Honor sajd he would not enter a nonsuit There wag some evidence, though Blight, to indicate that the formalities had been complied with, and ho would prefer to hear tho defence. Mr Roy then called Karena to Ha, who stated that he agreed to sell the land in 1889, but he did not know the area nor the price. He had not been paid. The value was £7 to £10 per acre Major Brown acted as interpreter. Heslop Barnitt, who slated that the land was worth £6 per acre in 18,81}, if pur chased without unusual expenses. — Clark, wlp valued the land at £10 per acre. Mr Richmond objected, to e,vj.lenoo as to value. Mr ttoy then shortly addressed the Court, Tefeiring to li s former argmnents Mr Richmond replied, repeating his for mer argument aud contending that the question of valuo would havo to bo dcult with by the Trust Commissioner, and need j not bo considered by this Court. His Honor sail he would t.ke time to consider, and would, ohd.ea.vor to give udgmont next day. On Tburt-day judgmcut was given ll in Honor said that tho paitjuilarg of the agreement were in some doubt, but that for the purpose of his judgment he might concede that the agreement was executed with oil propor fonnnlitioa. It was clour also that the defendant at one time admitted the agreement and obtained the benefit of it in U'e R.M. Court, but tbat it now suited bis purpose to treat ft US invalid, Un the second ground of defence judgment must be given for the do fondant. Tho agreement was an instrumc-at of alienation, and a Trust Commissioner a certificate would be necessary. No costs would be allowed. Mr Richmond intimated that he would appeal

llow Is t done ? By giving the people he benefit of my enormous purchasing power, enables Arthur Nathan's Reliable Tea 6to assert [their superiority in every way,-— Advt»