LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1343, 22 January 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

« SUPREME COURT. FAMILY PROTECTION CASE, THE COURT'S ORDER. On .Saturday Mr. Justice Cliiipmn.ii delivered judgment ill the rase Campbell Colqiihoun v. the Public Trustee, a claim for maintcnanco' under (lie I'amily Protection .Aft, 190 S. His Honour stale! that a great deal of (ho evidence went in the direction of supporting a claim made by the plaintill thai j tlio estate of the te-tatri\ really belonged to hiui under an arrangement made _l:e----livcaii tlieni as husband and wile, _ This branch of (ho argument w.iolly mis'-on-cehdt tho purpose of Part 11 of tli9 statute, relating to iamily maintenance, which assumes that the estate belongs to the testatrix. It was sliown tiuat the. property originally came from the plaintiff, and that ho had transferred it to the testatrix. The reasons for this transfer were partly in dispute. It might be proper in cases like this, where a discretion has to be exercised, to consider tho origin and history of the property, but comparatively little weight can be ordinarily attached (o such history. Under our laws tho owner of property -retains the testamentary liberty which has so long existed as one of our traditional institutions, except so far as it is cut down by the statute in question. Tho ease of AUardyce v. Allardyce, decided by tho Court of Appeal, which stood the* test of a further appeal to tho Privy Council, showed, his Honour continued, that consideration must be extended to tbe claims of those who have not been dependent on tho ' testator in the past, and could not have claimed relief from him in his lifetime. tie could not say that tho plaintiff had shown any immediate right to relief. He did not think the case one for the allowance of a lump sum. He had come to the (.■{inclusion, that an order which he had sketched would meet the requirements of the case. It was not necessarily final in its present form. ■ He wished to say that those who were, charged with the management of the .charities interested made an honest inquiry into the matters a,'feeling the plaintiff's claim, and properly took their stand upon the results of their inquiry. The order sketched by his Honour provided That the pecuniary legacies be exonerated from the incidence of this order. , That the income of tbe Tesiduary estate be subject to the provisions of this order. That out of such income the Public Trustee accumulate tho sum of .tiOO, or so much thereof as can consistently with carrying out this order be accu- . niulated, such sum to be retained by him to meet the requirements hereof. That in any half-year in which, in tho opinion of tho Public Trustee, plaintiff's iucomo falls below ,£SO, the Public Trusteo shall, subject lo tho provisions hereof, make it up to ,£SO for that half-year, so far as the income of the residuary estate, including the said sum of' JJIO'J, will admit . of his doing so. That in case of any special emergency, or in case tho plaintiff through illness, accident, or other cause has been obliged to incur special expenses which ho is not able to meet, ho may make application, or the Public Trustee may apply, to vary this order. Plaintiff was allowed for his costs .£lO 10s. out (f the estate, and tho Public Trusteo was allowed his out of tho estate. COMPACT THIRTY YEARS AGO. OVER MAORI LAND. Judgment was delivered on Saturday in tho action in which Donald Praser, farmer, of the liangitikei district, proceeded against Winiata Pataka for the specific performance of an agreement for the sale of laud, which agreement plaintiff alleged the parties had entered into. The land was of an area of about 50 acres, and known as Block C, in the Manawatuliangitikei district. Counsel for tho plaintiff was Mr. A. Fair, and for the defendant Mr. W. H. I). Bell. At the hearing, it appeared that some time ago one Richardson was in occupation of the land and the defendant (\\ iniata Pataka) took legal proceedings, and had him ejected. Tho plaintiff (Donald Praser) then stated that lucnaii.!".., was his tenant, and the outcome was the present action for specific performance. Plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim that, on October 3, 18S1, an agreement bad been entered into by.Krenoa Maraku (or Taratoa.) and Winiata Pataka ithe defendant) to sell all their share in a block of land, known as Block C in the Mana-watu-llmgitikei district, for tho sum of .£BO. Plaintiff alleged further that the block was tho land that Richardson had boo j occnpy-iag, and asked thai the defendant bo ordered to convey it to him and that, if necessary, a partition be made. Mr. Fair explained that, originally, tho block of land had been vested in Atareti Taratoa and nineteen other persons. The successors to the sharo of Ataheti were Nepia Taratoa, Erenoa Marqku (or Taratoa) and Winiata Pataka (the defendant). Plaintiff would endeavour to prove that it was after the death of Nepia Taratoa that the two other successors entered into the agreement with plaintiff. Since tho execution of the agreement, the plaintiff had been in occupation of the land, and had effected improvements thereto. It was contended for the 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 tho land referred to by plaintiff, that the whole deal was contrary to the equity and good conscience rule, and that Nepia Taratoa was living at the time of the agreement being made, and that, therefore, the'other two successors of Atareti could only transfer two-thirds of the land in dispute even if the agreement w;ere properly drawn up in accordante with' the Native law in force at tho time. There were other alternative defences. Mr. Justico Chapman, who heard the case, said that he had decided that Praser was entitled to the relief sought. THE PART OWNER. TAHOEAITI NO. 2 BLOCK. In December, Mr. Justice Chapman heard an application in reference to a block of Native land in tho Dannevirke district. Tho parties to the action wero Atenata Wharekiri, of Tahoraiti, near Dannevirke, plaintiff, and the Ikaroa Maori Land Board, defendant. Mr. C. 11. Treadwell appeared for the plaintiff, and the Solicitor-General (Mr. J. W. Salmond) for the defendant. Atenata Wharekiri, who claimed to be part owner of land known as Tahoraiti No. 2 Block, applied for an order declaring to be null and void the resolution, passed at a meeting of tho assembled owners held at Tahoraiti on August 11, 1911, and in particular the resolution to sell part of the block by public auction. The application was made on the ground that the resolution was in direct contravention of an Order-in-Council dated September 10, 1910. . i On Saturday his Honour delivered his decision. It was that he had declared the resolution .void.