“DEAD IN LAW.”

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2097, 4 June 1907, Page 1

“DEAD IN LAW.”

AN UNFORTUNATE HUSBAND

FIFTEEN YEARS A AYANDERER

Mail advices from Sydney give further details of the remarkable case, mentioned in the cablegrams, which was referred to before tho Full Court on 2nd May. Dir. E. M. Mitchell appeared for John Keegan, of Glenmore road, Paddington, and moved for a ■ rule nisi calling upon the Minister for Works to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing him to make a valuation of certain land resumed for the purposes of Cataract Dam. An affidavit filed by Keegan was read. Ho alleged that on stli August, 1869, he became the owner of a conditional purchase lease, consisting of 62 acres. He resided on the land with his wife and family for 12 or 13 years. One night when going to work at the Coal Cliffs mine lie missed tho track and fell over a precipice sustaining severe injuries, which seriously affected his mind and speech. Subsequently he worked at different.places in New South AVales, and was for long periods absent from homo. About 1890 or 1891 he came back to his farm, and was informed by bis children that liis wife was in Sydney, and had gone away with another man. Ho then left home, and never communicated with his wife or family again, though previously he had repeatedly sent his wife money.

During the next 14 or 15 years (adds the affidavit) he wandered about different parts of Queensland seeking work. During that :time he was in poor health, and hardly able to keep himself. He returned to Sydney, and underwent an operation in tho Prince Alfred Hospital. During liis absence letters of administratiop had beep, granted to his wife.

On becoming aware of this, Keegan causod notice of a claim for conipensation for the resumption of his land to bo served. In answer to the claim ho rocoivod a communication from tho Public Works Department, stating that ho could not be dealt with in tlie matter, and that if ho had any claim in respect of the land ho should mako it to his wil'o, Isabella Dorothy Keegan, to whom compensation had already boon paid. Mr Mitchell stated that-tho Crown statod in effect, “You aro dead in law, and have no right to bo bore.” The question was whether, under tho circumstances, Keegan was still entitled to compensation. Mr. Justice Cohon: I should think that an application ought to bo made to recall tho letters of administration.

Mr Mitchell: No doubt the Crown will raise that point.

Mr Justice Cohon: Then the question will also ariso whether, as the money has bee n paid under the lettor of administration, the Crown is not protected. „

Mr. Mitchell: Tho question is, is not tho applicant tho owner of the land, and thoroforo entitled to compensation ?

Mr. Justice Cohon: It seems very ha.d upon the Crown and the applicant, too.

Mr. Mitchell: Yes; and the question is, which of the two innocent persons is to suffor.

Tlro rule nisi was granted