THE ENROTH CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 272, 21 April 1914, Page 4

THE ENROTH CASE.

'RESERVED DECISION DELIVERED.

PLAINTIFF RECOVERS LAND AND MONEY.

Be?ridi» qU f 1 'w 0 casc in wWcl > Clara TH n -n- w P'ymouth, widow. (Mr. the Sim for an order of fer d ffi-W S °- ting aside a trin "- a th.J ® en J an "n Enroth, made at his W^- f She bolicved herßolf * when the R e lX appeared for H. Johnstone for the Pubfic TrosfeT-, marriage to Mrs & time 0f his widow, .hp already'fe JLd that, moreover, this ■ ''' * wa 9 not his first. that the transfer rotn ttiat alio was his lawful iifJ -tik land should be returned'to her asked that an account be tak«n ?. moneys paid by her to Enr^&l 1 to amount to £3OO, and that this .ia paid to her, and also that an Ant be taken of all rents and profits of her land received bv Enroth. To this X added a elaim for costs and 'th< Wti ' prayer for general relief. ■ Mr. Justice Edwards, in his written A* cision, remarked that the facts Were not :n dispute, arid the claims foV a re-tmuw-fer to plaintiff was not contested conn. Bel for the defence meroly eontendme that allowance must be made to tli i <j£ fendant for the value of lutiafc > itii- •. ,provemerits (in the shape of twolloiues) § made by Enroth upon the plaotlft'* 4k land, and that, if neoes3#.rjs'the should be charged with the paimontiot uis Tv 1 The judgment then prooeeds to 'dill exhaustively with the point lier a person, who h corapeUe&ttWw. gorge property liy his own fraud? can i be allowed to maintain a claikff&r ilia value of lasting improvements to 1 '¥ ■ ; ''li« property which he knew he %eld 1 , fraudulently. After reviewing a Mmber of cases bearing on this point,flrW«T the 1 | judge remarks is raised for Mt first i me in New Zealand, tne judgttW goe* to aaj that in hifc opinion the casee' quoted were insufficient to ftumort claim for all allowances for lasting im- ! provements, as Enroth had '%*. cant of his fraud. Eyen If the &*Mfer V was, as had been assumed, by 4Mhel 'ii\ for the defence, merely voidable .(i& actually void, the plaintiff waaewtled < to the relief for wnieh she elaiipjsd, and the defendant, as Enroth's esycutpr, was not entitled ~to> allowance, f« tapwr*. «: M mente. But, apart from this asgiHM&Ura.tliere' l? t wag a stronger ground ret,.i ■'' j lief to 1 the plaintiff, for ! N.t I the transfer Was from its t .{?■ | and apart from the effect of we. snbse- 'ijp'n | quent .dealing by Enroth, coupled 1 tlie prpri»ioms of the Land TrivjrtfeT'iiit, j no suit Would bave been-nwewwiiton* ' store the title to the plaintiff. a > that her property had bnefe WetyaMpftft ' ' f hj» the fraudulent holder, did <*»* him or his representative any. letter right than het*>ir' fhflr would otherwise hnvc 'had. "Ehe3e .gromiifc applied with equal foroe to the suTn i dri3QdtAl)wpd to u e been paid by thtt, Bath, and M tke toowa' 6y by the; gale of her •ftOTseatMrawlferty. '» The' accordiQgl^nHHLde- . duration th4.| the ' moneys t» Eirfoth wag fraud, and directing an enqtftfW# ' ' the amount thereof, and tlutt &e (Up '■ ndant shall pay these Costs: were reserved., case of (lifferencp is to T>e settlgd ii\ ohanjaMp. .As tl|» '>nlv question discussed '} to the Telief to which plaintiff was eo- , -1 titljd waiTTfiatl of allowance lor lasting jta ue JUdjiety <on-4j^