Horowhenua Block HB.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 5 October 1911, Page 3

Horowhenua Block HB.

SOME LEVIN LITIGATION. AND SOME SIDELIGHTS. Commission upon native lauds leases secured by Grace Royal, a nativo agent, and transfei-red to Daniel HannaUj was claimed' in the Levin S.M., Court this morning, before Mr A. D. Thompson S.M. Mr Park was counsel for plaintiff (Grace Royal), and Mr J. McGratli appeared for defendant (Daniel HannanJ. In opening the case, Mr Park said that plaintiff had been in negotiation wifali certain natives for lands in Horowhenua Block 118, and paid certain sums of money to the natives concerned toy way of rent in advance. Subsequently Mr Hannah bought over Royal's interests, shdh as they were, in the leases. The result of these negotiations was reduced into writing, and by agreement it was provided that plaintffi should get leases signed in favour of the defendant, and defendant then Should pay planifciff the sum of £108 10s. Of this sum, £40 was paid at the time of the execution of tho agreement, and the balance was to bo paid as soon as the memorandum of lease was signed by the natives. As a matter of fact one lease had not (been completed, but ■the other four had been, and it was within the magistrate's discretion, counsel concluded, to allow plaintiff such proportion of the total amount agreed upon a& the magistrate deem. e<l equitable. Mr McGrath submitted that as plaintiff had undertaken to complete the five leases, and had not done so in respect of the full number, his claim must fail; or at least he must be non-suited. Mr Park replied that this was an obviously wrong contention. If a purchaser 'bargained to buy five separate articles, and four of tlhem were delivered to him and accepted by him, surely lie would be liable to pay. for the four. The Magistrate ruled thiat seeing plaintiff bad entered into possession of the leases and accepted benefit he miust pay for them. Evidence then was given by Grace Royal in .support of ibis claim, and incidentally he deposed t'liat the £40 lie got from defendant was by way of repayment for moneys paid by plaintiff to the various native owners. •Mr McGratli cross-examined witness with a view to showing that defendant had rights over these lands before plaintiff did his work. Witness answered that it was true Hannan had a gi azing right, granted by the court, but denied that Haniian j bad a lease of the lands. Witness said he would not admit that the land witness had not secured a lease of virtually cut the heart out of Hannan's leased block. To the Magistrate, the witness said that £3'' or £40 should have been paid to him for services rendered as agent; in addition to cash he had advanced on their behalf in the court. Had he not got the leases th'rowgh, tihe natives would have been, owing ihim about £80 in '•all, and he wouild have lost it •iltogo'fcher. The Maoris still owed him £40, and Hannan had paid him back the £40 plaintiff had advanced. Daniel Hannan, called By the plaintiff's solicitor, gave evidence as to the various transactions concerning the native lands. He contended that he was not to pay Royal, under the agreement, until Royal himself obtained the natives' signatures to the leases. It was true defendant had read the agreement before he signed it and that it said "the money was to be paid when tho signatures of the natives were obtained," not (specifically) when Royal obtained them. Witness understood, however, that Royal was to obtain them. Mr McGratli,' for the defence, questioned the S.M. Court's jurisdeition in this as questions' of native title were involved, and the case therefore was barred by sections 29 and 30 of the Magistrate's Court Act. He also submitted that plaintiff could not succeed until "all the signatures to the lease had been obtained." Mr Park said that his client had done all that could ! be done in the case. On defendant's own showing ho had completed three of the leases, and therefore lie s'hould' pay for these and the benefits he had accepted and received. His Worship refused to non-saiit the plaintiff, as it had been shown that one of the blocks concerned had been acquired by a (third' warty (John Ryder), and that Royal had carried out his work as far as it could be carried so far as Royal was concerned. Mr McGrath next contended that the area concerned was so preat that under the Native Land Acitthe agreement in question was illegal. Mr Park contended) thiat the quantity <of land concerned was not beyond the limit allowed for second and third class land. Defendant, Daniel Hannan,. then was put in the box, to jgive evidence as to value. He testified as to the unimproved values of certain of the lands acquired by him under those leases were 764 acres 2 perches of first class- laoid and) 253 acres of second class land. Witness was cross-examined with intent to how that the land had an amount of improved value which' would have tc be off-set. Mr Park also contended 1 that witness must put in the Government valuations, but the Magistrate said, he could not prevent witness from giving the evidence from bis own knowledge, though what weight the Magistrate would attacihi to that would bo another matter. His Worship dismissed the non■uit point and gave judgment for plaintiff for £10, with court costs and solicitor , .? fee.