SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 February 1918, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

QUARTERLY SESSION?. CIVII, Bi'smss. The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court at New J' 1;■ i,:outh were continued .yesterday, before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards, when the following civil business was taken: lieorge Appleyard claimed from Noli Wairahua the sum of £-227 Ms hd for ulvance of rent (£197 2s), cow ( £9), pU-s (£'2 10s), advances (£ll Ills), and interest ( .£7 (is 8d). Mr. F. C. Spratt (Hawera) appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. B. Kitzherbert represented defendant.. Mr. Spratt submitted that the claim was on account of a statement by which defendant admitted signing an acknowledgment which was given under certain circumstances, and he suggested that the defence should with a statement of their defence. Mr. Fitzherbert said it would save a great deal of time if the tase was taken in the "ordinary way. His Honor held that the case should he taken as suggested by Mr. Spratt..

Mr. Fitzherbert said the case was that defendant had a son who was commonly known as Dan. who also had a brother, the two being owners of some native land. Dan was a minor and the other son had died. Plaintiff had negotiated with defendant through Mr. Tekaka Thompson, a native interpreter at Hawera, for a lease of the land, which had been arranged, and the lease was confirmed. During the negotiations Dan's brother died and money was required for the tangi. Appleyard had paid a sum of £197 2s to Dan in adI vance for rent due. At that time the mother of Dan (who was the defendant) Isold a piece of freehold land, upon which she ivas to receive a sum of about £IOOO. Negotiations were then commenced for the surrender of the lease which plaintiff had secured from Dan, and it was arranged that Noti Wairahui should repay the money to plaintiff and lake a transfer of the lease to lierself. During the negotiations Noti liad signed an acknowledgment, as to what should he paid to plain! iiT for the transfer of the lease. Thompson had received £197. which had been disbursed by him. Noti had not handled any of the money. She would in any ea?e have received it only as trustee. Mr. Fitzherbert said that a sum of £-20 had been paid into court Tekaka. Thompson, native interpreter, Hawera, said he knew both plamtiff and defendant. lie knew plaintiff had leased some land from Noli Wairahui as trustee for her two sons. In the. course of the negotiations lie received from JVlr. Appleyard the sum of £197, for which he thought he gave a receipt. The money was to be paid over to Dan. The money was required for a tangi. The money was disbursed in cash payments to and payments mi account of Dan. The plaintiff had seeu payments made and receipts signed by Dan. He had not conferred with cici'enda/it as to any of the payments. He had made, no payments tg her out of the £l9".

To Mr.SSpra t: Hp remembered prinking n payment of ;£IS to defendant foi payment of an account for concrete v.'orli at Iter homestead. Tbe payment was made out of the C 197. He remembered defendant, receiving an acennnt for £0 7s Oil for medio;il attendance on her deceased son. He also remembered defendant asking liim to pay a tailoring bill of £."> for Dun, which was paid out of the £197. All the payments except the doctor's account and some small trade accounts, which were paid by direction, were paid within a week of receiving the money. Defendant would not leave the body of her dead son during the tangi, and that was why she had not been in (o see witness during that week. Sh« had sent word in to him by Dan He came in and asked witness to order certain goods wanted for the tangi. Appleyard was present when Dan came in on that occasion. Hi; had had dealings with defendant previous to the dealings in question. He, had no previous dealings with Dan independent of his mother. Witness had repaid himself for moneys lent to defendant's deceased son and hfs daughlei out of the £197 He had had other dealings with Noti in connection with the land, the lease of which was mentioned ir. connection with the present case. In making payments to Dan he always satisfied himself that Noti approved of her son having the money Appleyard had refused to pay over anyvnoney until the lease of the land had* Been signed. He believed plaintiff considered himself safe in advancing the moneys on account of rent. The defendant was a good business woman. He remembered, at the aitting of the Native Land Board at Xormanbv, that defendant had said she wished to repay to Mr Appleyard all the moneys shc.owed him. He knew she had at that time sold the piece of land, and it was out of that money she intended to pay Appleyard. At- the time of tje negotiations for the lease, and also the disbursements' of the £ 197, Noti *.vas accompanied to witness* office on two occasions by a Native returned soldier, whom she had sincg married. He had advised her on matters. He was a very intelligent man, of good education.

To Mr. Fitzhcrbert: He thought Dan would be about 20 yearn of age. He was a bit erratic. He had had a fifth standard education. He was like most young Maoris, addicted to drinking. Sidney Wylliam Fitzherbert, solicitor, Hawera, said be was present at the sitting of the Native Land Board at Normanby when the husband of Xoti instructed him to oppose the confirmation I of the lease of certain land which his Wife was interested in The president refused the application and was in the act of making the confirmation when Appleyard sent word that he was willing for the lease to be cancelled for a i consideration. About ten days Inter [ Appleyard and defendant called'at wit,i ness" office, and plaintiff stated his claim. An arrangement was made which he thought was final, and, an acknowledgment was signed. He considered the document was drawn up as a guide for himself in fixing the consideration for the cancellation of the lease. He did not draw' it at the request of either ,)ai ty, but on his own responsibility Defendant would not have signed the document if he bad not told her to There had been a dispute between defendant and Tckaka Thompson He then discovered that the money in question had been paid to Dan,'who was within a few months of coming of aae. He pointed out to defendant that if she paid the money to plaintiff she would be throwing awav her money to pav her son's debts. The object of cancelling the lease was to obtain money by which to retain the farm for her husband He advised her that when the son came of age he would be able to turn him out of the farm.

To Mr. Spratt: He considered the document was only a direction to him-

neii at to the amount of consideration fur cancelling the lease He Ivdieivd I\oli knew tlic meaning ana effect of tile document, signed, lie had declined to give the document to Mr Spratt, as be considered he was entitled to hold it for both parties until completed iMr. Spratt said he did not consider he had any case to answer. The signed document was admitted by the defence, but apparently the defence sought to establish that the document was not actually completed or that it was made mistakenly. A good deal of'argument ensued between Mi-. Fitzherbert and his Honor as to whether the money paid was for rent in advance, and whether a trustee could be sued for moneys she had never received. The quiention of law as to whether under those circumstances the money claimed was recoverable from defendant was deferred for legal argument, which it was agreed to take in writing, fourteen days being allowed in which to complete the argument.