A LAND CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 March 1922, Page 8

A LAND CASE.

NATIVE LEASE INVOLVED. SOUTH TARANAKI ACTION. ■ . i > An action to recover the sum of £604, said to be profits lost through failure to gain possession of certain land, was brought in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday, before Mr. Justice Chapman. The plaintiff was James G. Johnston, farmer, of Fraser Road, Hawera, and the defendants werp James R. Corrigan and Alexander Corrigan, both of Hawera. The subject of the action was 68 acres of Native land on the Fraser Road. According to the statement of plaintiff’s case, the Native owner was entitled to it by virtue of a partition order made in February, 1915. On July 22. 1920, he executed a lease to the plaintiff, the term being for twenty-one years, commencing on September 1, 1920, at the annual rental of £3 per acre. The lease was presented to the Aotea Maori Land Board for confirmation, and duly confirmed in September. The seal of the board, however, was not affixed till August 13, 1921, nearly twelve months later. At the time the lease was granted to Johnston, and presumably for some time prior, the Corrigans were in possession of the land. The only document which purported to grant any tenancy to thfem, however, was a bill of memorandum signed by the Native owner, and bearing the date November 27, 1915, but it had never. Men confirmed. This document purported to give possession of the property to defendant, J. R. Corrigan. At the time Johnston entered into the agreement with the Native owner for the lease he knew that defendants were in possession, but on the understanding that there was no tenancy between the Corrigans and the Native he took the lease. FARM GATES LOCKED. After the plaintiff heard that the confirmation by the Land Board would be granted, he made a demand upon defendants about October 6, when a letter was written to each of the defendants, giving notice that the plaintiff had a confirmed lease and required them to quit within a week and to pay rent from September 1. The defendant, J. R. Corrigan, happened to be the owner of the adjoining land, and at the same time as plaintiff gave notice to qui* he gave notice to J- R- Corrigan to fence. No reply was made by defendant to either of these letters. Defendants . had a sharemilker in possession of the land in dispute. On October 13 plaintiff went to the property and locked the two road gates on the farm, putting a lock and chain on each of them. The land was being used by the Corrigans in conjunction with their own property adjoining. It so happened that in the day time' the Corrigans’ stock was running on their own land, and at night it was on plaintiff’s land, so that when the gates were locked there were no cattle on Johnston’s part of the farm. He also gave notice to the sharemilker, telling him what he had done, and warning him that he was not to put the cattle in again. When plaintiff came back the next day. it was stated he found the locks had been broken and that the cattle had been put in over-night. Johnston had another farm at some distance away, and he proposed to work both farms in conjunction by means of employing share-milkers. Under a tenative agreement he engaged a man in view of carrying out his plans. It so happened, however, counsel stated, that plaintiff’s position altered at that time, and it was not till April 30, 1921, that he started to work the 68 acres. In the meantime some of the cattle he had proposed to put on the property had to be sold at a loss, and others were carried on his own farm, which consequently became rather over-stocked. On July 23. 1921, a writ was issued against the defendants, but had been discontinued. His Honor (Mr. Justice Chapman): Why was it discontinued?

QUESTION OF DAMAGES. Mr. Spratt said that the plaintiff was advised that the seal of the Land Board was necessary in regard to the lease, and the action was discontinued. The seal having jfeen affixed later, the lease was registered on August 16, 1921. The settlement, which had been come to between the parties prior to the discontinuance of the first writ, set out that the action was to be adjourned, and that defendants were to give possession of the place forthwith, which they did. Plaintiff' and defendants were to make certain applications to the Maori Land Board, and all rights were to be preserved to each party. The action was now brought by Johnston to recover damages, and the whole question was as to what amount of damages he was entitled to for the loss of possession for the time. His Honor interposed that it appeared to be a case which might have been settled 'by the parties. Mr. O’Dea said the trouble was that defendant had already paid rent to the Native owner, who had also got rent ,i»* of Johnston.

His Honor: The guileless savage generally gets something. Proceeding on behalf of plaintiff, Mr. Spratt said it was contended that Johnston was entitled to the full rental value of the farm for the period he was out of possession. Evidence would also be led to show what plaintiff could reasonably have expected to make out of the land had he received possession, or alternatively what defendant (being in wrongful possession of the land) might have expected to make out of it. The rent Johnston paid for the land while he was out of possession was £204. Plaintiff further estimated that had he t.hp possession of the land he would have made £4OO over and above his rental on the working of the farm Whether that, was so or not was a matter for evidence, which promised to be somewhat lengthy and at variance. In reply to His Honor, counsel said there was no prospect of the parties coming to a settlement. »

The principal witness, after giving evidence on the lines of counsel’s statement, was cross-examined by Mr. O’Dea as to his farming capacity and how much, he reckoned he could make off the 68 acres. He admitted that his own farm of 85 acres, which was also on the Fraser Road, and which he had held for sixteen years at 9/6 per acre, had been sold by the mortgagees. He was still on the property, and was now paying £3 per acre rental. Asked as to how this state had come about, he said he had not tried to “make a do of it,” as he did not need to farm the land. He denied that his idea had been to make something out of the 68 acres by selling it to Corrigan at a profit, and not by farming it. He said he had been offered £lOOO for his goodwill by R. J. Tiddy, of Hawera, but did not accept. This was towards the end of last August, and not during the land boom. It was correct that all his stock were now mortgaged. To Mr. Spratt: He attributed his present ’ position to speculation in other property, | and not to bad fanning. Other evidence given on behalf of plain*

tiff’s case touched on the question of the value of the land as a farming property. It was estimated at being capable of carrying from 30 to 32 cows. The witnesses were: Samuel Blake, retired farmer, Hawera;, John Owen Jones, farmer, of Matapu; and Stewart E. McDonald,, dairy farmer, Normanby. DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE.

Defendant, J. R. Corrigan, gave evidence as to his connection with the property. He said it was acquired by him in 1914 in conjunction with other purchases of land which he made in the vicinity. The total area used was 281 acres, including the Native lease involved in the case. His son Alex, had nothing whatever to do with the 68 acres, having a farm of his own near Inglewood. He had taken £1893 from 83 cows off the 281 acres, of which the sharemilker got 40 per cent. From the balance he had to pay rent, rates and taxes. He did not think it was possible to carry 32 cows on the 68 acres, and he based this opinion on a knowledge of the place for thirty years. In the 1920-21 season witness’ herd averaged £23 per cow, but he did not see how Johnston could have paid his way on the 68 acres at the rent he would have to meet. In fact he did not think Johnston secured the land with the idea of fanning, but rather with the intention of exploiting witness, as the area was the key to. witness’ other property. It had been put up to him more than once that he could have the land at a certain figure. He acquired the land from Hori Toroa under an agreement which was to expire in May, 1920. He duly paid the rent, and when the term was up it was 'agreed that he was to continue his tenancy. When Johnston got a confirmed lease witness knew that he had no s right of occupation and gave up the pososession of the land. Witness had paid up‘the rent of the land , to November, and Hori Toroa was indebted to witness for the rent for the unexpired portion of the lease, .September to November, 1921. In October he had received a letter from Johnston, who said he had u confirmed lease. Witness made enquiries, however, and found this was not the case. He saw the Native, but Toroa did not say anything about witness going out of occupation.

The evidence was proceeding when the Court rose till to-day.