OVER NATIVE LAND.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1244, 28 September 1911, Page 3

OVER NATIVE LAND.

AGREEMENT MADE THIRTY YEARS AGO. Mr. Justice Chapman was occupied in tho Supremo Court yesterday in hearing the ca?.'3 of Donald Prater, farmer, of the liangitikoi district, v. Winiata Patalca, a suit for specific performance of- an agreement for the sale of land alleged to have been entered into. The land was about 50 acres in area, and formed part of. what is known as Block C in tho MauawatuRaugitikei district. Mr. A. Eoir (Chapman, Skerrett. Wylie, and Tripp) appeared ior the plaintiff, r.nd Mr. UV It. D. Bell (Bell, Gully, Bell, and .Myers) for. tho dslendant. It appeared that some time ago one Richardson had been in occupation of the land and the defendant (Winiatn Pataka) took legal proceedings, and bad him ejected. The plaintiff (Donald Eraser) then stated that Richardson'was his tenant, and the outcome was tho present action for specific performance. Plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim that, on October 3, ISSI, .an agreement had been entered into by Erenoa Maraku (or Taratoa) and Winiata Pataka; (tho defendant) to sell all their share in a block of land, knowiras Block C-in •tho'-'llanaV wain Ran;itikei district, for the. sum of .£39. Plaintiff alleged further that, the was the land that Richardson had been occupying and asked that the defendant bo ordered to convey it to him and thai, if necessary, a partition be made. Mr. Fair explained that, originally, tho block of hand had been vested in Atareti Taratoa anil nineteen other persons. Tho successors to tho share of Ataheti v.-ere Nepia Taratoa, Erenca Maraku (or Taratoa) and Winiata Pataka (tho defendant). Plaintiff would endeavour to prove that it was after tho death of Nepia Taratoa that the two other successors entered into tho agreement with plaintiff. Since tho execution of tho agreement, the plaintiff had been i'n occupation of tho land, and had effected Improvements thereto. Several witnesses wero called, and when the case for the plaintiff had closed Mr. Rell asked for a. non-suit on (he ground that, the claim, being one for specific performance, plaintiff must show had a binding contract compelling defendant: to convey the land to him, and that defendant had refused to earn- out the r,in tract. . Before he had any right to bring an action for specific performance, he must give defendant the money and tender a conveyance. As a second nonsuit point, Mr. Bell contended' that the attestation of the agreement, as an agreement for tho sale of land, was insufficient. His Honour said that he would reserve tho points, and Mr. Bell proceeded with his defence. It was contended for tho defence that the agreement was not valid because it was not properly interpreted at the time, that the land mentioned in the agreement was not the laud referred to by plaintiff, that the whole deal was contrary to the eojiiilv and good conscience rule, and that Nnpia Taratoa was living at the time of tho agreement being made, and that, therefore, the other two successors of Atareti could only transfer two-thirds of tho laud in disnutc cveu if the agreement were properly drawn up in accordance with the Native law in force at the time. There wero other alternative defences. Evidence was tendered by the defendant, and Mr. Fair then replied on the nonsuit points raised, after which his Honour reserved decision.