A WAIRARAPA CASE

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10560, 16 February 1912, Page 5

A WAIRARAPA CASE

■mi m ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD. A case was commenced in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday-, before Sir Robert Stout, C.J. in, • which Martha McGregor, of Grey- \ town, wife of George Stewart McGregor, sheepfarmer, was the plaintiff, and the District Land Registrar, Wellington, William Harris and Thomas Harris, of Martmhorough, • sheepfarmers, were defendants. I Mr 0. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him » Mr F. E. Ward, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., with him Mr €. B. Morison, for defend- ( ants Harris. The Registrar, who was, unrepresented, submitted to the judg-j ' It''was set'put-, in" the /Statement .of claim that on the'lst April-';18&3, Hamuera.Tamahau Mahupukuand Hon-1 ana Natanahara leased 6469 acres, known as the Nga-wakaakupe Block, to Charles Harris, father of defendants Harris, for twenty-one years. The .memorandum of lease was contrary to statute, and was granted at a . grossly inadequate rent. It was, iii!" fact, granted by the two Natives to William and Thomas Harris from feelings of friendship to the latter, and out of gratitude for financial assistance" which Charles Harris had rendered to Mahupuku, and, further- j more, the lease -was a lease to com- ) mence in future. An application to) the Native Land Court at Otaki, pre-1 sided over hy Judge Mackay, to confirm the memorandum of lease, was j not granted, and plaintiff said the ( negotiations were abandoned, and not further proceeded, with until after Mahupuku's death. On 14 th February, 1904, and before any confirmation of the memorandum of lease Mahupuku died, and plaintiff, then I Martha Mahupuku, aged fourteen, was appointed his successor to the block, Mr H. Stratton Izard being j appointed her trustee. On 3rd Aug-, ust, 1904, defendants Harris applied to tbe Native Land Court at Wellington, presided oved by Judge Gilbert Mair, who ordered a valuation. There was no record of the valuation, but an order, without authority of law, and without further hearing, was issued by the Court on 3rd August, 1904, purporting to confirm the document purporting to be a . memorandum of lease. This order was without jurisdiction, inasmuch as the order of Judge Mackay was final, and bad not been set aside. The grantor ] of the lease was dead, and the. Court had no jurisdiction to confirm the' lease. Plaintiff further alleged that the arrangement between Izard and defendants Harris to consent to the confirmation, of the lease, and the proceedings which resulted in the confirmation, was to their knowledge a collusive arrangement and a fraud on ] Martha Mahupuku's rights and inI forests, which it was Izard's duty to protect. The arrangement contemplated a lease at a grossly inadequate rental, and a payment of £SOO direct to plaintiff's trustee in violation of law, and the trustee and the defendants Harris knew or ought to have known that the interests of plaintiff, then a niiuor, were being sacrificed under the arrangement. Plaintiff asked for a declaration that the memorandum of lease be declared wholly illegal and void, and that the order, of confirmation • dated 3rd August. 1904, be declared wholly void, and that the District. Land Re't gistrar be ordered to cancel the memorial of the memorandum of lease. DEFENDANTS' VERSION.

Defendants said a proper valuation I was submitted before the Court ad- i judicated. They were the proprietors ' of the leasehold estate created by the I lease duly registered under the provision's of the Land Transfer Acts without fraud, .and they relied on the provisions of the Land Transfer Acts. Defendants denied that the lease was illegal or void, that the rent was inadequate, or that the motives of Mahupuku were as alleged. They denied that proceedings for confirmation of the lease were abandoned as stated, and that they were wholly dissatisfied with the result of the application for confirmation made on 15th December, 1901. The order of 3rd August, 1904, was valid. Save that they admitted that it was Izard's duty to safeguard plaintiff, defendants denied that there was any collusion or fraud. The rental was not inadequate, and they did not know directly or indir-. cctly that the minor's interests were being sacrificed, and they denied that such interests were sacrificed. The whol© (paragraph containing the allegations of fraud were denied.