A LAND DEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 24 March 1932, Page 2

A LAND DEAL

DISPUTED -AGREEMENT

CASE BEFORE COURT OF

APPEAL

WELLINGTON, March 21. The Court of Appeal was occupied to-day in hearing the appeal of John M’Creanor, storekeeper, of New Brighton, from the decision of Mr Justice Adams 'rejecting proof of debt filed bv him in the bankrupt, estate of Malcolm tM’Leam, storekeeper, of Karamea. Appellant's proof of debt was for the sum of £922 19s lid for -rent, purchase money and interest in connection with certain leafahold lands, the -subject of

agreement for leasing and compulsory purchase made between him and Malcolm M’iLean on September 12, 1921. Appellant claimed that in pursuance of the agreement bankruDt and another had entered into pouMMon of certain leasehold lands, partly Uative reserve rind partly held under occupation license, and paid neither purchase money nor rent. Bankrupt contended he had entered into the agreement on the assumption that he was obtaining a lease of freehold properties, and refused to pay rent and purchase money owing. The trial Judge upheld bankrupt’s contention that the term “land” in the -agreement meant freehold land, -But directed that proof of debt for £3OO, being rent payable, should be admitted. An appeal from this decision now is brought. Opening the- case for appellant counsel 'submitted that from the whole

terms of the agreement for leasing and • compulsory purchase it was clear that leasehold and not freehold lands were to be transferred. Although the •Nelson Land Board had cancelled two occupation licenses which were in appellant's name and issued -new licenses in favour of bankrupt, the board had not given appellant the one. year's notice required by 11 1 e < Public Reserves Act, 1881, and the board's action, therefore, was ultra vires. Even supposing, however, that there was a technical iflaw in appellant’s title to the land held under occupation license the Court should ilot- look to the form but to the substance of the contract, which bankrupt affirmed both in correspondence and by his conduct. Counsel for respondent submitted iu opening that- no opportunity had been given bankrupt of investigating the title of appellant, and even if the Court were of opinion that the agree-

meat indicated that the land concerned was leasehold land, bankrupt could not lie blamed for taking the meaning that freehold, not leasehold, land was to be transferred. -Further it was contended that appellant allowed at least seven years to elapse before taking any action on the -agreement, and this delay should debar him from claiming equitable relief. The Court adjourned until to-morrow.