THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 389, 31 July 1889, Page 6

THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

A veky peculiar c&se has lately been argues 'in the Victorian Law Courts, in which the Crown 1 claimed the unearned increment'of a portion of land 1 in f the city of Melbourne. The ' case was heard before the Chief Justice^ JMr Justice Williams, and Mr Justice Holroyd. Di: Maiden and Messrs Hodges, Higgins, Topp, iind Mitchell appeared for the defendant's, and Messrs Box and Hood for the Crown.' ' There' was therefore a goodly array of legal' talent to argue the very knotty question brought before the Court. , It appeared,' from' the evidence taken, thab in November, 1862, the Crown leased to a Mr Williams for seven years 'three acres of land at' West Melbourne for the * purpose of a carriage factory. In 1868 Mr Williams surrendered the lease in order that the land should be put up for sale by public aucbiori. The land was sold, and Mr Williams became the purchaser for the sum of £300. One of the .conditions of the sale was, however, of a character 'thak had' ultimately' led to these proceedings being taken. It runs as follows :—": — " Her Majesty the' Queen, her heirs and successors may at any time subsequently to the sale resume - possession of the land on payment of the purchase money paid t by him to Her Maiosty, together with interest at the rate of 10 per centl per annum calculated from this day, and of a' fair and reasonable compensation, to be fixed by arbitrators one to be appointed by the Board of Land and Works, and the other by the purchaser, his heirs, executors, administrators, or assignees respectively, and an umpire to be chosen by the arbitrators, for all buildings and other improvements, being fixtures erected on the said land by the said purchaser, his heir?, etc. ; and in the event of no such arbitrator being appointed, or no award made K of such a sum as may be fixed by the Governor in- Council, and approved of by Parliament." The wording of this clause is very. clear and definite, and it "is a pity th\it such a one is not inserted in all Crown grants.) Had this always been the case, there would not be so 1 much trouble as there now is over the compensation to be paid to freeholders for their land, when it is required for' public purposes. How this clause came to be inserted in this particular deed, und whether the insertion of a similar clause wa3 customary in other deeds at 'the time this was done, does not appear. If there are many others of the same description in Victoria, the holders of valuable lands under such deeds must look with no little anxiety upon the decision come to in the present case. •The terms ratified by the deed are fair enough. In the event of the Crown deeming it necessary tore-enter possession, the original purchase money was to be repaid, plus simple interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. All improvements, etc., were' to be valued and also paid for in full. Mr Williams does not at the time appear to have taken any exception to this clause, for he signed the agreement, and a grant from the Crown, subject to this condition, was made to 1 him of the property in March, 1868. Later on, as land increased in value, and Mr Williams received good ofiers for his property, he began to see that under his title, any unearned increment that might hare accrued co it since his purchase would not' go into his pockets, but into the State Treasury. He therefore set fen work to fcrvand cr.eb the condition cancelled. To effect this — amuonuiuwi, o £ surrender" was executed by Mr Williams in 1872, which was endorsed on the duplicate of the grant of 1868. This surrender has the following :—": — " Whereas the written grant, etc., contains a condition, and whereas the eaid "Wni. Williams wishes .to obtain the land in fee simple, without any conditions, and ho is desirous of surrendering to Her Majesty the said land in order, that a fresh grant may be made to him in fee simple and without any condition, — Now this indenture witnesseth that in consideration of the premises and of the sum of ten shillings sterling money, paid from and out of the consolidated revenue of the colony of Victoria," Mr Williams surrendered his land to the Crown. Another Crown grant of the land was issued to Mr Williams in April, 1872 ; this was sent from the Crowns Lands Office to the Govei-nqr, Avho sealed and signed it. the little necessary formality of its being placed before him in Council being dispensed with. As respects this matter it was urgod in 'Court, although it ,w.as not proved,^ that it was not customary at that'date to obtain the consent of the Governor-in-Council to the execution of Crown grants, although how it was strictly insisted upon. In February, 1888, Mr Williams sold his rights in the property to Messrs R. Goldsbiough and Co. for £25,000, receiving the cash for it. His transfer to that firm was lodged in the titles office for registration, but the -registrar very properly refused to register" it," in consequence of a caveat which had been lodged on behalf of the Crown. An objection was here taken on the part of the Crown that the proper steps had nob been taken to remove the i caveat, that the Queen could not be proceeded against by summons, and the proper remedy was to bring an action against Her Majesty, and test the validity of the second Crown grant. The decision" of the Court was reserved upon this point. It appeared that a syndicate was now desirous of' taking the property in hand, but fought shy of the condition attached to ib. The actual value of the property now was £150,000. No actual result appears to have been arrived at, but the Chiof Justice said, "We think the Registrar of Titles or the Attorney-General on behalf of the Crown should take active steps to set aside the 1 alleged invalidgrant (the second one) and, should do so within: a limited time, nob prescribe any iimit for that being done whether by scire facias orotherwise." If the original condition is eventually adhered to the possessor of this property will receive £1,110, that being (the original cost of purchase plus interest at 10 per cent, 'per annum. In addition there would also be the compensation for buildings, and if it is decided that the present possessors are the real owners, then they acquire at once a property worth £150,000, or, deducting the possible amount of £10,000 for improvements, , they would receive a present of £140,000. As to whether this large sum shall go into the pockets of the speculators or into the coffers of the State, appears to 'depend very ' much upon whether Her Majesty's purchase of bhe property in 1872> for ten shillings, sterling money, was or was not alegal transaction. — "Auckland Star," August 12, ' <

A man full of spirits is nob naturally given to sober reflection. An empty tin can may point a dog day moral, .but ib does nofciadorn a tail. Is ib natural to suppose that quotations in pork are written with a .pig pen ? Remember that early assaults on' weeds are more < successful than late, and* at a .great deal less cost of labour. No marriage will prove a failure as long as the.wife continues to think her husband was the best man at her wedding.