330
It appears that the petitioners never acquired any title to any rights whatsoever as the root of their title consisted of a forged deed. The Land Court was misled by this forged deed and when the forgery was discovered the Full Court reversed the decision of the Land Court.
The petitioners have their remedy on the covenants contained in the assignment to themselves and in the assignment by the claimants to the intermediate purchasers. Para. 29.
With regard to paragraph 29 of the Petition, it is incorrect to speak of "the purchase of the said property" as there was no property in the land in any person other than the Crown; the only effect of the assignments was to transfer the rights (if any) of the claimants to ask the Government to grant an appropriate title or to pay compensation.
The claimants having only fishing rights the proper title would have been a grant of fishing rights, and those rights were subsequently assessed at $1,400 only, an assessment which the Colonial Secretary considered at the time to be excessive and only accepted because he thought the real owners of the fishing rights had been badly treated by their fraudulent relatives.
Para. 31 to 33.
The purchase by the petitioners was speculative and cannot be compared with a purchase of land held under an established title.
The petitioners are only suffering such a loss as any purchaser of property is liable to suffer if it turns out that his title deeds are forgeries.
The Land Court at the time of the judgment in GR12/1902/C.5.0.Extension. It is noted that a receipt for the payment signed by the heads of each of the three branches of the clan in my office on the 30th August, 1904, is attached to the file.
Page 330
05613
330
elt mi bertelnen vlleet need had di 11 beeb erit of berfoste Ji Jude botata atnæmisio add bne,booubong Jon baw vositİBİNAM
taol med ban
(aterolibeeg at yd beselic es Qunt al I
add eroled stow bra ni duq erew atqtoos“ xe) to redmin a tert - oife atqteos" saarit tadt bra Iseggs ert to gnirsed ent no tvOS geliiton sew storid dud gnty JrY BAW xat to royaq edi tans be- en die gniŸ tuy vitnebt of styleoer end to most end no Anti galtoernos adt ¡dul deT MBI bas Xu gauero ma” atnamisio
•Tentot s ei dotdw beeb sát vɗ beliqque gated
gal dry fedt bevoría atqłoost XS) DROHT
Jotal ent ni sera bonitahng to Joeqast ni sexet aridai? blag -nen Jon ei moo(vox .*Hut Lawx mal rofeeons" yd had no mu to
.atqiaoer xat erit no benold-
braya Ntiw aettupne ebam tnamnisvoë sie
azert vɗ betnoɛonqer aðdgir gnidelt sit to quilerenwo end of nalo mal end of begnoted atimiz saedd ført barevogelb bus aexst batnaan neeď potved atdzin gatralt ed? ¡no me mi fell Xod to ot hettati onew atifgt eft tent bre due lewX maI of y[lantatio .etgod gnimeerd bis felt gninotso fat-fIede tot griggih ent sit exoted besogeb nalo mal erit to baad en
mtfelt seedt to sika bongile et "o hissd raven bad er tedt
Start Jant bus (beeb bantot add to otab aft) EBBI ni addett
辈
,891 to beeb end ni berien gnty tuỶ et ea noɑraq dore on Baw Boat gridal” and fee of rewoq on bad atnantalo and Jadt bna
.noeeq yns of nafo ext 20
odt stiv beitaltes ontoď fnemntevoð al:
erit of bisq abiswieta aðnemstate saart To naentɗdrowdaud and Lis to? moltsansqmoo es 004, 13 tomura a malo mai eri to
2
veg við noofwolt mi malo eft vd beritalo strigir qotdelt
to 1913 s es blaq raw noitsensgroo atrit
grace as the real owners of the fishing rights had never laid any claim in the Land Court. A receipt for the payment signed by the heads of each of the three branches of the clan in my
office on the 30th. August, 1904, is attached to the file
12/1902/C.5.0.Extension.
It appears then that the petitioners never
acquired any title to any rights whatsoever as the root of
their title consisted of a forged deed. The Land Court was mis-
-led by this forged deed and when the forgery was discovered
the Full Court reversed the decision of the Land Court.
The petitioners have their remedy on the
covenants contained in the assignment to themselves and in the assignment by the claimants to the intermediate purchasers. Para. 29.
With regard to paragraph 29 of the Petition,
it is incorrect to speak of "the purchase of the said property" as there was no property in the land in any person other than the Crown; the only effect of the assignments was to transfer the rights (if any) of the claimants to ask the Government to grant an appropriate title or to pay compensation.
The claimants having only fishing rights the proper title would have been a grant of fishing rights, and those rights were subsequently assessed at $1,400 only, an assessment which the Colonial Secretary considered at the time
to be excessive and only accepted because he thought the real owners of the fishing rights had been badly treated by their fraudulent relatives,
Para. 31 to 33.
The purchase by the petitioners was speculative and cannot be compared with a purchase of land held under an established title.
The petitioners are only suffering such a loss as any purchaser of property is liable to suffer if it turns out that his title deeds are forgeries.
The Land Court at the time of the judgment
in
05613
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.