A CARTERTON CASE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10495, 5 December 1911, Page 5

A CARTERTON CASE

IN THE SUPREME COURT.

The force of'a. verbal agreement, said to have.been entered into by a testator, whose estate is' now administered toy the Public Trustee, was discussed <by his Honor the Chief Justice .(Sir Robert-Stout) in a judgment delivered at the Supreme Court on Saturday.

George WiiMam Deller and Robert Gteorg© KetmbiLe, of darter toil, farmers, sued (the Public Trustee, as* trustee of the will of Charles Rooking Carter, of Carterton, settler, deceased*, for specific performance of a veribail!, agrement made with the deceas-c-di whereby the. date Mr Carter agreed .to grant to plaintiffs a renewal of a Lease.

Mir E. F. Hadfield appeared for the (pHaintiffs, and' Mr J\' W, Micßeifc-. »M for the Public Trustee. ~ On -ipehruary 1.5 t h,. 1805, <plaintiff© leased, froin the deceased 1 S9BQ acres known, a® Te Wlheki Station, netir Carterton j for a term of. twenty-one years, expiring pn f Febrtiaxy 1916, at an annual rental of £2OO for the first seven years, £220 forth® next seven years, and thereafter £250. 'Deceased died on July 22nd, 1896, and probate of his will l wasgranted' to the Public, Trustee. Deceased directed that out of the residue of his estates a Home for Olds should be ereoted' in Carterton', tihie rents from Te Wheki Station and other-properties to be an endowment for the upkeep of such home. Plaintiffs alleged that the late Mr Carter, "on or. about March 31st, 1896, agreed verbally to execute to the plaintiffs a further lease of Te Wheki Station for twenty-one years, 4io ifake effect as< from February lotbh, 1916, at an annuaii- rental'', off £290 for the first ten years', and £330 for it&e remaining eleven year® . ' As soon as this verbal agreement "was mad#, said plaintiffs,* they completed permanent improvements, includingfencing, draining, .and scrubbing to itih© value of £B6B. Since 1896, relying on Jblxe agreement, they had completed' further drainage and fencing to the vialue o# £658. They stated .that they applied to the deceased when alive .to/ complete -the alleged agreement by executing an extended lease, but he .failed to do. this, and, on his death, the Pub-lio Trust Office declined to grant an. extensiony I since there was no written contract, j and itihe Piublic Trustee held that he j would not be justified in: so. doing- unI foss ordered .by the court, as • the I present 'lotting value of tih» land was |; considerably greater than tihe rental | of £290 fixed under the proposed re-' ! newal. . . 4 • . | His Honor decaded.that the maini question ;anewer<&l< were: (1) ! Was there part performance of thecontract bv plaintiffs ? (2) Was the dellay of. plaintiffs. in isuinig any baato their succe&s ? The learned judge answered both these questions in d&-' fondant's favour, and decided, that judgment must be given, for defendant with costs according to Bioalei as on a claim for £4OO, with witnesses' expense® 'and disbursements.