A CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

AN OKAIAWA CASE.

J In. the Magistrate's Court oni TuesI day, before Mr Kenrick, S.M., Williara Ross and Thomas John Ross, of Okaiawa, builders, sued Edgar Osmond drivers, trading, as Chivers and Co., storekeepers, Okaiaway to recover from the defendant the possession of a certain tenement. situate at Okaiawa, being the shop and premises now occupied by the defendant; and the plaintiff also claimed from the defendant the sum of £2 14s 6d, being 21 weeks and 6 days' rent from September 1, 1909, to February^, 1910, at 2s 6d per week. Mr McCarthy appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Sellar tor the defendant. It appeared that the defendant had for a term leased a half -acre 'section from S. and C. Murdoch. On this sec- n tion was erected a house, shed and shop. The lease expired in. March of last year, but the defendant continued [to rent the property. Prior to March, 1 1909, the plaintiffs arranged to subI lease the section from the Murdochs, but there was also an arrangement l with the defendant, so it was alleged," I that he should continue -to rent the i shop at a rental of 2s 6d i per \4eek. | Subsequently the plaintiffs gave notice Ito the defendant to quit the shop. This I the defendant refused to do, hence the preseni action for , recovery of possession. William Ross, one of the plaintiffs, in his evidence said there was no stated term between the plaintiffs and defendant in. respect to the shop. The defendant, . he said, wished the same lease as plaintiffs had with the Murdochs, but the plaintiff told him that this could not be done, as the plaintiffs might require the ' premises for themselves,. There was absolutely no ' 1 agreement' signed in writing. T. A. Lyall deposed that defendant had told him that the shop was of no ' real value to him except to keep opix)sition out. He occupied the house durr ing the defendant's lease of it, and was still in occupation. He was paying the rent to plaintiffs, who had intimated to him that they had a sublease of the section from Murdochs. The defendant had made no arrangement with^ him about the term ■of the lease of the house and neither had the plaintiffs. The defendant, in the course of his evidence, said the Murdochs had never approached him at all in regard to the sub-lease with the plaintiffs. Defendant referred to an arrangement which i had subsequently been made between himself and the plaintiffs, which was 1 in effect that defendant was to give up possession of the paddock (which the plaintiffs were to use for their horses) and that the defendant was to have the use of the premises for 2s 6d per week for the duration of the plaintiffs' lease from the Murdochs. | To Mr McCarthy, the defendant said I there was no specific ■ term of years I mentioned by the plaintiffs to defendant in regard to their agreement with him. .The agreement was never put in writing : — possibly this was due to neglect on defendant's part. Mr Sellar addressed the Court on the legal aspect of the case, and asked for a non-suit. Mr McCarthy submitted that the onus was upon the defendant to prove that the lease was in operation by law. The Magistrate reserved his decision. Steams' Headache" Cure is so convenient I Nothing to measure out; no powder to all over one's clothes. . Merely to moisten the wafer and then drink L with a swallow of water. No bother at'