Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Manawatu Herald, 9 April 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court, Foxton.

Wednesday, Aphil o, 1889

(Before Major Tuke, E.M.)

G-. K. Williams v. Wi Katene.— Particulars of claim — The defendant undertook to sell to the plaintiff certain land, and plaintiff has done all necessary thing** on his part to enable the purchase to be completed. The plaintiff claims £100, beiog damages for breach of agreement, and in the alternative the plaintiff claims from defendant £58, being the purchase money paid by plaintiff and interest thereon Mr Fitzherbe t appeared for plantiff, and Mr Hankins for defendant. Objection raised by Mr Hankins — The point I take is only technical, that the particulars of demand accompanying the summons has not been translated into the Maori language. The Act declares that particulars of summons shall be deemed to be part thereof, and was necessary to shoTr the Native what lie is iharged with. I cannot see that there can be any answer to the objection. Mr Fitzherbert said Mr Watd laid down the practise of the Court that it was not necessary to have particulars translated. The Magis trates had a' ways ruled that the summonses only need be translated. They agreed that extra legislation had gon« beyond what was,, necessary, and that the summons in form 0 of the schedule, should be in Maori. We have complied with section 39 and issued summons in Maori, it is the practise of the Court. Mr Han '< ins — Because one or two Magistrate's have ruled so, my contention is that it is not to be said that it should compel you to accept their decision. His Worship held that be considered it vvas intended that particulars should be in Maori. I will take the ca«e, as it has been the practise differently* but I will reserve the point. Mr Fitzher lert stated that on 12 h Dcemoer, 1832. defendant mi Id a piece of land to plaintiff and receive! the money and ijave a receipt. Toe receipt bus not all 'onn.ililius lequirc I hy lav, so we could could no; go to a Supreme Ciurt to c impel completion. We sue for £100 damage* tor breach of contract, find a'l we ha»e to prove i* thir «e have con.plied with the 4th section of ttie Sta'ute of Frmds Act. and in na way •■'ii the question of title be drawn in. Tho diniages will be the dtfferenco between thd price paid and value now. I further claim that we sue for mooiepaid and interest. S. M. B iker beint; sworn deposed — I know my own writing ; I am a licensed interpreter ; I wrote the document, but 1 cannot say who came to mo ; I do not know to whom I handed i r . (document translated a-jr e.iient between G. R. Williams and Wi Katene)

Cro^s examined by Mr Hmikins— l wis not aciiiiiT ha lu;.;nseJ interpreter itien ; I did not profts^ to aut as licensed interpreter at ihe time when making agreement out ; I di I not witness the gigiiH'U'ei 1 . T. P. Wi>!iams depo ed ~fn 1882 I was acting as a^ent f'»r my brotber. Wi Katene off' . re«l tlie whole" 100 aere« or |iarl lor «ale ; I a»reed to imy 50 a'-rcs. Mi o<mk anH myself witnessed Wi Ka'ene's Hi^natiirc Dafendnnt never dii; uted the &ar eniMit nutil at the Trust Coniioissi'iiu-is C(»ort. He s'a'ed that, when be «igin d Hgrt-emetu he was not uwHrc that, he was «el um an)' land ; my brother paid £58 for Ituid 6 or embt years k(<>i ; since that th<. railway bas l)e(.'n out Uirou^h ; 1 think we could liHie «»ld the limJ for ,£350. Tue section adj>iino>: hm hfcti sold 'or a leafleof3l years for £100.

Cross ixaminid »>v Mr H:mkins--I was storekeeper i> 1882 ; Wi K-itunt- was indebted to me for mores. The p Hituiif is tnv brother. Wi Kit. ne nweel me .t's4 odd : the monev was p*iil hy me for my brothtr by taking ui» h p.n. of L54, which represented amount due me by Wi Katene for »-toref : the pn •va-f net taken up til) after the transaction ; I have the bill still in my • ostusoion. T>.e !<ili was not under dUconnr. Tlie transaction was moßt etupbaticuily not for me. I cannot show nny entry a^Hinst 1113 brother; my first attempt to put the title N'raight wax some three years <ign ; why I had not previously, I whs waiin.t for the native to settle the exchange with the railway compwn. The native^ titled land hid not baen individualised ; Jud^e Puckey I saw. but c:njld my. k«i matter ee'tled by him, l:ccau<<e land had not been surveyed. When Wi Katene ■igne'l, my store account wa< gone into by him ; he had to receive a small balance in canh ; I have never teudered th< native a conveyance. IU enuninsd— l owed my brother money

and agreed to purchase' tWs, land for him.; Wi Katene said he never sold i&?tbfe lanu 1 but had sold to Woods.

George Williams deposed— Wi Katene showed me this land twice, beo&use I Ranted some, and wanted to buy it; I was qpt surprised to h«ai? that he denies it. Thre'e o¥ ftnir; Weeks after" weing the land Wi Edfefle 1 signed jigreeirietit id veil. He knew well what He 1 ttid j he e'etd read and write ; my brother a'ctea Us lily' Crops examinei— i cannot say MVftdtiUfa my. brpih'er owed, m'e, for wages, about £50. I ftnW Hidi I did not get the title at the time because ttie' Railway Company had not completed 6Z6fiiiii&: T. U. Cook deposed— l know Wi Katetitf » I witnessed this agreement; I saw Wi Katene sign it ; he understood it ; I think I read it over to him.

Cross exsiratitted— l do not know it it was given for a store debt; George Williams recalled— Wi Katene has never repaid me any sum. Mot' h*f e I ever tendered him any conveyance tot rig" nature ; I left it to my brother.

Mr Hankins— The Native Land Act 1883, provides how a document must be prepared for a Native to part with his land, This document should have been executed in aeoordanoe with this Act, and if not, the same shall be absolutely void, Kipa Whatenui v. Keira Bansfield and another, decided by Justice Richmond, In that case, the woman being entitled to land bad executed a transfer to Kipa Whatenui, and Biera Bansfield had received whole purchase money. The title was for some reason not completed, and Beira Bansfield sold to someone else, when Kipa Whatenui brought an action for breach of agreement and return of purchase money, but Justice Richmond held that at the time she had executed transfer she had not obtained an order for freehold tenure, and was therefore void. The plaintiff had not proved that the land was held in freehold tenure, and there is no order even now. If the Statute 6ays it is absolutely void can they come to this Court and compel observanca, I submit plaintiff must be nonsuited, for the contract is illegal and void. Mr Fitzherbert — The objections might be right if I, sought completion of contract for title. We seek only breach of contract, which is a different thing. We have paid £58, we are entitled to get it back, and to a verdict for damages.

The Court adjourned the case to consider nonsuit point raised by Mr Hankins. ASSAULT. Samuel Fuller was charged with assaulting the children of Arihia Kareua by beating them. There was no appearance of Samuel Fuller. The defendant was fined 10s and costs.