APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 307, 23 September 1919, Page 3

APPEAL COURT

NATIVE LAND LEASES

FAMILY COMPLICATIONS

The Appeal Court sat yesterday, and delivered judgment in tho case of Bevau v. llevart. On the bench were His Honour tlio Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Herdman.

Tho facts ij tho case, which was heard on July S, were that Himnith Bevan, a half-caste Maori, was the registered proprietor of \ift acres in the AVaitohu survey district, and Thomas Bevan, her husband, was the registered proprietor of uevtain other lands in the same district, containing' 62 acres 1 rood, and was the ovrne: , of certain lands transferred to him by one Haknrauv Te Whenn! The lands owned by Hannah Bevan and her husband wero separated by other lands owned bv certain Natives, tho greatev part of which was held by the said Thonias Bevan, under lease from the Native owners. By memorandum of lease dated September 21, 1908, Hannah Bevan and Thomas Bevan leased to their eon Edward Bevan, Hannah Bevan granting a lease of ]22 acres 2 roods . 30.4 perches, part of her saio; land, . nnd Thojnas Bevan leased all tho lands belonßing to him. Tho term of leaee wns twenty-one years, and the rental £150 per annum. Edward Bevan, the lessee, died on June 9, 1911, leaving a will by wjiich he bequeathed all his property, to his fatber (Thomas Bevan), and his wife, Ellen Bevan, upon certain trusts, for his wife and children. The will was duly proved, and on February 14, 1913, an order was made vesting the estate of the deceased in the Public Trustee as administrator thereof.

Hannah Bevan died on June 15, 1912, and bv her will she devised all her lands to her sons William Bevan and liichard Bevan. who were tho plaintiffs in. the case, to be divided between tliem. Arv plication was made to the Native Lands 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 *he wilL Before- the matter could be determined bv the jfativo Lands Court the parties, after eonio negotiations, agreed to a settlement of all the matters in disputt, the terms of which were embodied in an agreement under which Richard Bovan and William Bevan agreed to pay in full all debts owinp by the late Edward Bevan or, his estate to Thomas Bevan, junior, Kflbert Bevan, and George Bevan. ■ William Bevan and Richard Bevan further agreed to purchase from the Public Trustee the lea.so held by the late Edward Bevan from Thomas Bevan, senior, and Hannah Bevan, and there were certain other conditions, including tho payment of JC3OO, to Eilen Bevau. This agreement was approvsd by the Native Lnnds .Court.

The Public Trustee adopted the agreenient, and proceeded to liave it carried into effect. Finding that the laud had no person in charge, ho appointed Willliaui Bevan as manager pending the completion of tho agreement. Later on, William Beyan was pressed to completo tho agreement. William Bevan contended that he and his brother Richard had entered into the agreement of March 28 upon tho representation of George Bovan that tho amount of Edward Bevan's dobl to him (which debt under tho agreement, was to 'be pakl by William and Richard Boytin) wns'only JJSO, whereas he then claimed .£3OO. Other reasons wore also gjvcn for not completing the agreement. William Bevan and Richnrd Bevan brought an action in the Supreme Court claiming that tho agreement of March 28, 1913, should bo eet aside and declared voirl and of no effect on five grounds. The other parties to the agreement denied all the material allegations of the plaintiffs, claimed that tho agreement was valid and effective, and counter-claimed for the various sums of money which under tho agreement tho plaintiffs were to pay t'noin respectively. Mr. Justice Stringer, in his judgment, h'fd that tha agreement was valid and effective,' and 'that tho counter-claiming de-fondants were entitled to liave it specifically performed in accordance with the toil or thereof. ... ■ , . . '■■■ ■■ < •

In the course of carrying out. this decree two questions arose which were submitted for the judgment of :Mr. Justice Strir.aer.■ Tho questions were briefly:— (1) What is the proper amount of rent payable by William and Richard Bevan as'lessees from Thomas Bev&n, sen., and Hannah Bevan, hie wife? (2) What α-ro tho rights.'of Williani and Richard Bevan ami of Robert Bevan under the terms of the lease in respect to the paircel of land purchased by the said Robert Bovan from HflVftrnin To Whena? , His Honour, in answering tho first question, 'hcM that the proper amount of rent ought to be readjusted by ascertaining the Government valuation of the lauds on June 9, 1911. To tho second ciupstion His Honour replied that tho ulaintiffs had no rights against Robert Bevan. Aeninst this decision the pkintiff« appeafed. The Court was unanimously of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, and' judgment was given accordr iiiffly. ' ' ■ • At the N heariu2. Mr. C H. Treadwell appeared fnr William and Richard Bevan, and , Mr. M, Myers for Roliert Bovan.