SPECIAL LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 9, 5 October 1907, Page 8

SPECIAL LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. • A MARTINBQROUGH CASE. Tlio adjourned case, James Stafford Adams, of Martinborough, hotelkeeper v. Walter Harris, of Masterton, sheep farmer, was concluded. This was an application to decide whether the refusal of Harris to consent to an assignment of the lease of the Club Hotel, Martinborough (of which lie is the owner), from Adams to Thomas Bernard Hugh M'Guire, of . Martihborough, settler, was arbitrary or unreasonable. The case, had been adjourned to enable the parties to come to a settlement. Mr. Young, who ' appea'red for Adams, admitted that a convenant in the existing lease requiring Adams to paint the liotel premises and attend to tho drainage, had not been complied with by his client, who had, however, offered to deposit £200 to cover tho breaches, and was still prepared so to do. Mr. Herdman intimated that his client, Harris, required a guaranteethat the work would be performed in a satisfactory manner. Adams,' after depositing the sum agreed on, might depart from the Dominion, and then, if any dispute arosc'as to the quality of workmanship, difficulty might be experienced by Harris in obtaining reparation. At present Adams was. in the occupation of the hotel, and Harris was inian excellent position to compcl'him to comply with the covenant. His Honour said there could be no doubt M'Guire was a man of substance, and that ho was a man of good character could'not be disputed. Judgment would v be as follows:—"That, upon tho payment of tho.sum of £200 into Mr. Herdman's hands as a fund for the painting of tho hotel, and also to put tho drainage in order, Harris is forthwith to consent to the assignment of tho lease,; Harris to have the option of carrying out tho. painting and drainage, and to expend so much of the, said sum of £200 as is necessary for that purpose; and any surplus remaining qf the £200 after the completion of the work to be returned to Adams. Ten guineas costs would be allowed against Adams." A DISPUTED '.INVENTION. The case, George Saunders, of Pleasant Point, threshing mill owner, v. Alexander Finlay Campbell, of Totara Valley, Timaru, threshing mill owner, was taken in the afternoon.. This was an appeal-'from tho decision of the Registrar of Patents, givon on June 19,1907, by which he decided that respondent was entitled to have letters patent granted t.o him for an invention for an improved wearing strip for concaves of threshing machines. Respondent, in describing the nature of his invention when applying for letters patent,' stated that. the rubbing bars of the concaves wero subjected to considerable wear, chiefly on the top of the bar and on the front corner. It ; was, therefore, of the utmost importance ,tb have tho front corner sharp and tho top .'of the bar straight, so that tho threshing drum/ might run at an even distance from tho concave bars. It was also important that the top of tho bar should be maintained at tho same height from the.wires of the concave. He had provided angle ' steel. or irou strips which were bolted or secured ■' to the posts of the ordinary concavo bars, thereby giving entire protection to tho. bare, and, at tho same time increasing tho width of the rubbing surface, and also providing that the front cornor of tho bar could bo maintained at tho same height above tho wires of the concave. In'a..disclaimer, respondent stated that ho was aware there were similar wearing strips for concaves such as Saunders's patent,. No. 9120. Tho grounds of tho appeal wore as follows: —(1) That the alleged invention was not novel; (2) that respondent was not tho true and first inventor of tho said alleged invention; (3) that: tho' alleged . invention had prior to the dato of tho application being publicly used and published within tho Dominion of . Now Zealand; and (4) that tho alleged invention was to all intents and purposes the same as that of which appellant had obtained letters patent No. 9120 in New Zealand on December 11, 1895.' •'■■'- ■ -; Mr. Morison, for respondent, raised the following objections (which were noted by . His Honour):—(1) That there was no petition on appeal as required by tho Act;'and (2)-that there was no power on appeal from the Registrar of Patents to call witnesses. Mr. Young called George Saunders (the appellant) and James Olliver. The Court then adjourned until 10 a:m. next day;' A NATIVE LEASE.', - His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper, sitting iu Banco,- hoard tho case Gertrude Ellen Meinertzhagen (plaintiff), v. tho To Ikaroa District : Land Hoard (defendant) yesterday .morning. This was a 'summons for a mandamus to compel the Board to give its consent to a' Native.leaso in the Waimarama Block; or, in tho alternative, to direct the Board to hear and determine tho application.." Mr. Maxrison appeared .for the plaintiff, and Mr. Skorrett, K.C. (with him Mr. J. L..Stout) for tho defendant Board. Plaintiff, in her statement of claim, stated, inter alia, that, on May 19, •1886, tho Nativo owners.of tho Waimarama Block leased the lands to Frederic Hugh Meiuertzhagcn and Thomas Richard Moore, of Waimarama, sheep farmers ,for tho period of twenty-one years from May 19, 1886. Tho former died on May 81, 1895, and, on March 5, 1906, the trustco under the will and Mooro assigned by deed to the plaintiff, tho daughter of tho.deceased, the lands for tho unexpired portion of tho term. On March 8, 1906, Marchu Turoa, a Native owner of the said 'ad, executed in favour of tho plaintiff a lease of, or contract to lease, her share and interest in the part, of land known as Waimarama, No. 3 A. Prior to tho execution of tho document the capital valuo' of the land had been assessed .under tho Government Valuation .of Land Act, 1896, as at less than £5 per acre. Tho rent agreed to be reserved by the said lease was ss. per acre, and was in excess £5 per centum per annum on such capital value of the interest of Morehu Turoa in the land, and was an adequate rental former share and interest, and tho plaintiff entered into the contract on the faith of the then assessment of the land, and after having made duo enquiry was satisfied that tho' rental was an adequato rental. Morehu Turoa had at the time of the execution of the lease sufficient other land for tho purpose of a papakainga, and, in addition) the rent payable under the lease, which was an incomo sufficient for her support. On July 0, 1906, a Board was constituted under the Maori Land Settlement Act, 1905, for the To Ikaroa Maori. Land District, within which tlin laud in question was situated. M'evebu Turoa signed an application in June, 1906, for defendant Board's consult, to, or approval of the lease, and, on December 10,1006,' plaintiff lodged an application for approval of the instrument, also a declaration in tho form required by section 26 of the Maori Lands Administration Act, 1900, a certificate of the valuation of the land, and a list of other lands owned by Morehu Turoa. On Juno 19,1907, tho application came before tho defendant Board, which hold that it had no power to deal with any application in respect of tho proposed lease, because prior to the execution of tho lease the

declaration required by section 20 of the Act had not boon lodged with the Maori Land Council for the district, and it decided that, for that reason, the application could not bo proceeded with, and it refused to hear and determine it. Plaintiff was in possession of the land, and had, on the execution of the lease; paid a half-year's rent, and, in September, 190G, a further half-yearly instalment. The decision of the.Board was, plaintiff contended, erroneous in point of law. ' In tho statement of defence it was sot out, inter alia, that the instrument in question was intended by all tho parties ■ thereto to ho a lease of Morehu Turoa's share and interest in the Block, and not a contract to execute a lease. Prior to the execution of the document plaintiff had not lodged the necessary declaration, and tho Hoard had determined that it had, therefore, no jurisdiction to hear the application, and had, accordingly, refused to grant its approval. The Board did not proceed to consider whether the rent proposed in the lease was adequate, or that the Maori alienating it had a papakainga or sufficient other.land, or (with the rent payable under such lease) income sufficient for her support, or whether tho lease was for the benefit of the Jfaori lessor. • After hearing legal argumont, His Honour intimated that be would tako time to consider his judgment.