SUPREME COURT

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10590, 23 March 1912, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

MASTERTON--FRIDAY.

IN DIVORCE

EMSLIE v. EMSLIE.

Sitting in divorce yesterday morning, Mr Justice Edwards heard a petition in which Ethel May Emslie, of Rongoma;, ask A for a divoM- f. -ni her husband, Wilfred W. Emslie, on the ground of adultery. The parties worn married at Rongomai in 1897, and there were two children from the issuo of tho marriage. Mr Harold Smith appeared for the petitioner, but the respondent did not appear.

Evidence in support of the petition was given by tho petitioner and Henry Dunn.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. Costs on the lower scale were allowed against tho respondent.

A LAND TRANSACTION,

A case was commenced in the Supreme Court at Masterton yesterday afternoon, before His Honor Mr Justice Edwards, in which Francis Hood, farmer, claimed from Robert Harry Hole, livery stable keeper, the possession of certain land ibelonging to the plaintiff, being sections 89 and 90, Small Farm Settlement of Masterton. Mi- W. H. D. Bell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Blair for the defendant. It was alleged in the statement of claim, that on or about October 2nd, 1911, the defendant entered into possession of the land in question by virtue of an agreement made on August 24th, 1911, between the plaintiff - (through his agent, J. Anketell), and the defendant, under which the defendant was to purchase the land at £47 per acre, subject to a( deed of mortgage of £2OOO. It was further alleged that possession was taken during the absence of the plaintiff in England, and while his son (George Hood) held a power of attorney over the property. Prior to his departure to England, the plaintiff gave to- John Anketell,, the person who purported to have signed , the agreement on behalf of the plaintiff, certain authority in writing to sell the land on terms different from ', the terms set out in the agreement of ', August, 1911, but before leaving New [ Zealand the plaintiff cancelled and. revoked theautliority of the said' John ■Anketell. . On the date that the agreejtnent- for: sale was entered into,, it was : contended.Wt- Anketell 5 had ho- nghtfc "' or authority" to sellor to sell"•• the land, nor had George Hood, under the power of attorney,, any ./po;wer or ;^tMffty v Wlsdll' or ree* to-sell,' or ''\ to confirm the sale made-by Anketell or any other person. The plaintiff, , when he returned to New Zealand in December, 1911, and learned of the agreement, repudiated and refused to '■ be bound by the agreement, and demanded possession of the land, which '. was refused. The plaintiff therefore- , claimed possession of the land, and iihe sum of £SOO for profits as from . October 2nd, 1911. ,In the statement of defence, possession of. the land was admitted, but it was-.pleaded that theVsale was a bona fide one made by the agent of the plaintiff and endorsed by his attorney. Francis Hood, on oath, deposed that he was the owner of 82 acres of land on the Upper Plain, subject to a- mortv ' gage to Messrs Maunsell Bros. In September, 1910, Mr. Anketell came to his house and asked if he would sell "Heatherlea." Witness said he did not think he would sell. Mr Anketell said the man had plenty of money, andif there was a transaction it would be for cash. Witness asked who tho man was, and Anketell said that it was Mr Charles Beetharo. Witness said that was all right, and witness ultimately decided to sell,, Anketell asked him what he wanted, and he said £4B per acre. He calculated the gross amount to be £3900, but he reduced it by £SO to £3850. Anketell asked that the authority be given in writing. Witness was not very well, land so Anketell''wrote, it. Anketell [asked, "What about the mortgage?" 1 Witness said, "Never mind the mortI gage, you said it was to be cash. Make lit cash, and I will arrange with the. I mortgagee." The authority produced ' was the one signed by witness and handed to Anketell. It was agreed that all crops should be taken at 30s per acre., This did not-'represent the value of the crops. Witness, did not regard the authority as a general one. He understood that it applied to Mr Beetham only.. Had-he-thought it a J general authority, he should not have i given it. Anketell came to witness' J house next day and said that Mr Beetham would not touch it with a fortyfoot pole. All that Mr Beetham wanted was about twenty acres on which to erect a house. Anketell then asked what witness "would take for two sections containing about nineteen acres. Witness said he would take £6O per acre. ■ Two or three weeks later, Mr Anketell said the price was too high for Mr Beetham. Some months afterwards, about the end of February, 1911, witness heard that Anketell was hawking the property,, about, and was surprised to hear it. He went to see him. Anketell said ho had offered the property to a Mr Snell, and asked i' N witness'load seen him. Witness said ho had not, and did not intend to sell the farm. He asked Anketell to destroy the authority,"and he said he would do so. Witness told him he was going to England. Witness left for England on the 23rd March. Before lie left, he .executed a power of attorney in favour of his son. He also made a will, in which he provided for the disposal of "Heatherlea" in the event of his death. The Court at this stage adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. -