REMARKABLE McDONALDBARKER CASE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume I, Issue 115, 25 April 1884, Page 2

REMARKABLE McDONALDBARKER CASE.

JUDGMENT FOR MR. BARKER. His Worship delivered his decision in this case this morning. After explaining what the action was brought for he said : On a careful examination of the matter, and a close inspection of the deeds, I find that the case stands thus : In the month of June, 1878, the Native owners in Whataupoko Block being desirous to obtain back their interests in the estate, entered into an arrangement with Barker, through their trustees, Rees and Wi Pere, which is evidenced by the deed of trust dated 22nd June, 1876, which deed fully sets out the intention of the parties. One of them is Katarina Kahutia, to whom the annuity now claimed is supposed to have been paid and now claimed by the plaintiff from the defendant under the deed of indemnity. I find that after the execution of the deed of trust by Katarina, and the sale of the property by Barker to the trustees, for which purpose Katarina executed the deed of trust, that application was made to the Native Lands Court to vest the interest, then undivided, of Katarina in 1,000 acres of the block, which order was made. I find on perusing the deed of indemnity that there is an endorsement thereon by the District Land Registrar, to the effect that that deed is cancelled so far as relates to the 1,000 acres in which, as I understand, is included Katarina’s allocation. It must appear from that endorsement that a land transfer title has been issued to the 1,000 acres, free from all incumberances, and that Katarina is not in any position to claim the annuity covenanted to be paid by McDonald after Lie issue of that certificate ; but I think I am justified in going further and saying that tiie justification for the District Land Registrar in making that endorsement was the fact of Katarina having signed the deed parting with all interest, and depriving herself of any right in the property either legal or equitable. I cannot conceive that a certificate of title under the Land Transfer Act would h.Ae been issued to the 1,000 acres unless it had endorsed thereon such an encumberance as is now sought to be enforced. I therfeore give judgment for the defendant. BRASSEY & FRASER V. SEIVEWRIGHT & STOUT. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. His Worship gave his decision in this case this morning, which was adjourned from last Tuesday. He said the action was brought for the recovery of certain deeds by the plaintiff. He had listened attentively to the arguments of the counsels on both sides, and the case seemed to turn on this, whether the plaintiff had such a knowledge of the transfer of the business to the defendants as would warrant him in detaining the deeds until his lien was paid off. On account of certain transactions which had taken place, he thought the plaintiff was aware of the transfer of the business. He thought a lawyer receiving a telegram from another lawyer asking for perusal of certain deeds must have known that the business had been transferred, and should have telegraphed back to say there was a lien on the deeds, and that he would hold them as security for that lien till he was settled with. But nothing of this was done and the deeds were sent by the plaintiff. Therefore ho thought that the plaintiff has no claim against the defendants but could recover against Mr. Brown senr. Thus he would give judgment for the defendant.