CLAIM FOR TRESPASS

Chronicle (Levin), 4 November 1946, Page 7

CLAIM FOR TRESPASS

DISPUTE OVER OHAU LAND A claim of £20 for trespass on four acres of native land at Ohau was heard by Mr. A. M. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, Levin, last week. Plaintiff was Frederick Charles -Jarrett, farmer, of Qhau, for whom Mr. J. Todd appeared, and defendants were Sue Fee and Young Pan, Chinese inarket gardeners, of Ohau, who were represented by Mr. N. M. ThomSOn- ^ ' i. 4.1. 4. For plaintiff it was set out tnat in 1941 he bought the leasehold of 138 acres of land owned by twelve natives at Ohau and grazing rights over another four acres. The lease expired- in December, 1943, and he obtained a renewal. It was maintained that the new one included also a lease of the four acres as well as the 138 acres. In June last plaintiff had observed one of the Chinese and one of the owners on the four' acres taking measurements. He told them he held a lease of the property and was paying rent on it. Later he was informed that the Chinese were on thev land taking down a fence and starting a market garden. He consulted his solicitor, who had given him a letter which he delivered to the Chinese, stating thstt he had a lease of the property and they were there without right. Th'is had been ignored and today the ground was being cropped by the defendants. The sum claimed represented damages in the fence being removed and the fact that he had lost a crop of hay off the land. Evidence was given by Mr. D. P. Todd of the plaintifTs rent payments, which he said included paymen't for the four acres, and the distribution of it to the owners. The defence claimed that the case was one of contested title. In June when plaintiff had seen the Chinese and one of the owners on the property he had been told that he did not have a lease of it. On the evidence plaintiff had established no right in law to the four acres. All he held was a license to occupy it during the pleasure of the owners, and that had been terminated when he saw one of the owners on it in June. Defendants, however, had a lease of the property. Counsel produced a lease, signed on June 14 by the twelve owners, to the two defendants, and said that lon'g before the present action was started application had been made to the Native Land Court for confirmation. It was hoped that it would be dealt with at a sitting of the court next week. 'The magistrate said it appeared to be, a lease of the 138 acres with the.-right to acquire grazing rights oveh-fhe pther four, which could be dfetei'mined- at any time. In view of the lease- produceH by the defend-ajitsVhhd-ihe fact That it was going btfore the -Native; Land Court for •ebnfhmatioh in a"f ew days, it- would be uhwise for himlto give judgment until this decision; was known. If the - Native :Land -C^jirt confirmed the''/ 16ase to theTdefendants, it would have a very, mater'ial bearing on the question df damages. The lease would then be from June 1, the date stated in it, and he wondered where the plaintiff would be entitled to damages . except for rent paid since that date. I The case was accordingly adjourned until the next sitting of the court on December 6, when it was hoped that the Native Land Court's decision would be known.