THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

Te Aroha News, Volume VIII, Issue 395, 21 August 1889, Page 6

THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

A very peculiar case'haslateljr been Argues in the Victorian 'L&i&r Courts, in'wjhion the 'Crown claimed! the unearned increment of. a' portion df Tahcrih'tWcity of v Mejjbourhe. The "case* Was 'heard before th l e jQhie'f Justice, 'Mr ' Justice Williams; 'and 'Mi- Justice Holroy'd:' 'Div MaldeffahcTMessrs Hodges,. Higgins; Top'p, s ahd' "Mitchell appeared for the defehdarits; a'nd Messrs Box and Hood for "the Crown. There was therefore a goodly array 1 of legal talent to argue the very knotty question brought before the Court: ' " ( , i It appeared, from the e'videVice taken', that 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 auction. ' 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 thali had ultimately led to these proceedings being' taken. It runs as follows :—": — " Her Majesty the Queen, her heira and successors' may at any time subsequently to the sale resume possession of the land on payment of the purchase money paid by him to Her, Mafesty, together with interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum calculated from this day, and 1 of a fair and reasonable compensation, to be ihted by arbitrators one to be appointed by the Board 1 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 heirs, etc. ; and in the event of no such arbitrator being appointed, or no award made, 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 that) such a one is not inserted in all Crown grants. Had this always been the case, there would not be so 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, and whether the insertion of a similar clause was customary in other deeds at the time this was done, does not appeal-. 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 updn* the decision come to in the present case. The terms rati6ed by the deed are fair enough. In the event of the Crown deeming it necessary to re-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 thia clause, for he signed the agreement, and a grant from the Crown, subject to this condition, was made to him of the property in March, 1868. Later on, 1 as land increased in value, and Mr Williams received good offers, for his property, he began to see that under his title, any unearned increment that might have accrued to it since his purchase would not go into his pockets, but into the State Treasury. He therefore set to work to try and get the condition cancelled. To effect thia "an instrument of 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 said Wm. 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 an} T 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 Crbwn grant of the land was issued to Mr Williams in April, 1872 ; this was sent from the Crowns Lands Office to the Governor, who 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 urged in Court, although it was 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 now it was strictly insisted upon. In February, 1888, Mr Williams sold his rights in the property to Messrs R. Goldsbrough and' Co. £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 not been- taken to remove the 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 it. The actual value of the property now was £150,000. No actual result appears to have been arrived at, but the Chief 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 alleged invalid grant (the second, one) and should-do 'so within a limited time. We do not prescribe any iimit for that being done whether by scire facias or otherwise." ~» If the original condition is eventually adhered to the possessor of this property will receive £1,110, that being the original I cost of purchase plus interest at 10 per cent, per annum. In addition there w^uld 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 the property in 1872 for ten shillings, sterling money, was or was not a legal transaction. — " Auckland Star," August 12. > . '

A man full of spirits is nob -naturally given to sober reflection. i Ap empty tin can may point a dog day moral, but ib does nob adorn a tail . Is it natural to suppose that quotations j in pork, are written with apig pen ? 1 Remember that' early/ assaults on 1 weeds are , more suoceesful than late, and at &■ great deal less cost of -labour. '■ ■ ! No marriage* will .prove a failure as'long> as the wife.cqntiriues to .think'her husband was the best man at her wedding.