NATIVE LAND LEASES

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 244, 9 July 1919, Page 5

NATIVE LAND LEASES

BEVAN V. BEVAN FAMILY COMPLICATIONS

The Appeal Court .was engaged yesterday in hearing tho case of Bevan v. Bevau, an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Stringer, delivered on AuKuet 7, l'JlB, upon the ground that the judgment was erroneous in fact and in law.

On the bench were the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justice Sim. and Mr. Justice Herdman.

M:. C. 11. Treadwell appeared for William and Richard Bevan, and Mr. M. Myers for Robert Bevan. The facts were that Hannah Bevan, a half-caste Maori, was registered proprietor of HO acres in the Waitphu survey district, and Thomns Bevan, her husband, was the registered proprietor of certain other lands in tho eaino dis-' Irict, containing 62 acres 1 rood, and was the owner of certain lands transferred to him In- one Hakaraia Te Wheua. The lands owned by Hannah Bevan and her husband were separated by other lands owned bv certain Natives', tho greater part of which. was held by the 6aid Thomas Bevan, under lease from the Native owners. By memorandum of lease dated September 21, 1908, Hannah Bevan and Thomas Bevan leased to their san Edward liovan, Hannah Bevan granting a lease of 122 acres 2 roods 30.1 perches, part-of her said land, and Thomas Bevan leased all the lands belonging to him. Tho term of lease was twenty-one years, and the • rental ,£l5O per annum. Edward Bevan, the lessee, died on June !), 1911, leaving a will by which he bequeathed all his property to his father (Thomas Bevan), and his wife Ellen Bevan, ujion* certain trusts, for his wife and children. The will wae duly proved, and 'on February li, 1913, an order was mado vesting the , estate of the deceased in the Public Trustee as administrator thereof.

Hannah Bevan died on June 15,. 1912, and-by her will she devised all her lands to her eons Willialn Bevan and.Richard Bevatf, who were the plaintiffs in the case, to be divided between them. Application was made to the Native Lund Court for probate of this will, but the application was opposed by the other children of the deceased on-the ground that undue influence had been used in procuring the deceased to make the will. Before the matter could be determined by the Native Land Court the parties, after some negotiations, ' agreed to. a settlement of all tho matters in dispute, the terms of which were embodied in an agreement under which Richard Bevan and William Bevan agreed to pay in full all debts owins bv the late Edward Bevan or his estate to Thomae Bevan, lunior, Eobert Bevan, and George Bevan. William Bevan and Richard Bevau further agreed to purchase from the Public Trustee the lease held by tho late Edward Bevan from Thomas Bevan, senior, and Hannah Bevan, and there were certain other conditions, including the. payment of .£30(1, to Ellen Bevan. This astreempnt was approved. by the Native Lands Court. The Public Trustee adopted the agreement, and proceeded to have it carried into effect, finding that tho land had no person in charge he appointed William Bevan as manager pending the completion of the agreement. Later on, William Bevan was pressed to complete the agreement. William Bevan contended that ho and his brother ltichard had entered into the agreement of March 28 upon the representation of George Bevan that tho amount of Edward Bevnn'e debt to him (which debt under the agreement was to be paid by William.and Richard Bevan) was only .£BO, whereas he then claimed ,£3OO. Other reasons were aleo KivDiy for not completing the agreement. Willinm Bovan and Richard Bevan brought an action in tho Supreme Court claiminß that the agreement of March 2S. 1913. should be set aside and declared void and of no effect on five grounds. The other parties to the agreement denied nil the material : allegations of the plaintiffs, claimed. that ■ the agreement was valid and effective, and counterclaimed for the various sums of money which under the agreement the plaintiffs were to pay. them respectively. Mr. Justice Stringer, in his judgment, held that the agreement w«is valid and effective, and that the counter-claiming defendants were entitled to have it specifically performed in accordance with the tenor thereof. Costs were allowed the defendants.' ' ■

In the course of carrying out this decree two questions arose which were submitted for the. judgment of Mr.. Justice Stringer. The questions were briefly:— (1) What is the proper amount of rent payable by William and Richard Bevan as lessees from Thomas Bovhn, senr., and Hannah Bevan, his wife? (2) What aro the rights of William and Richard Bevan and of Robert Bevan under the terms of the leaso in respect to the parcel of land purchased by tho eaid' Robert Bevan from Hakaraia Te WhenaP nis Honour, in answering the first question, held that the proper amount of- rent ought to be readjusted by .ascertaining the Government valuation of tho lands on June. 9, .1911. To the second question His Honour replied that the plaintiffs had no rights against Robert Bevan. Against this decision the plaintiffs appealed. \ The hearing of argument had not concluded when the Court rose.