MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XLV, Issue 10384, 1 May 1925, Page 5

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TROUBLE OVER A LEASE.

ASHBURTON—THIS DAY. (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.) William Oakley, of Ashburton, proceeded against Dennis Coffey of Waimate, to recover £65, as penalty for an alleged breach of the conditions of a lease. Mr R. Kennedy appeared for plaintiff and Mr W. D. Campbell (Timaru) for defendant. Mr Kennedy said the lessee was to grub up and destroy all gorse growing on the land, which was situated at Shepherd’s Bush, and to trim all hedges, and work the land in a proper manner. They had endeavoured to settle the matter by arbitration but they did not succeed. Defendant had, however, offered to pay half, but this was not acceptable. William Oakley said he leased the land for three years, and he contended that defendant had not carved out the terms of the lease, as he had failed to grub gorse and dress hedges. He gave details on the plans (produced) of the work now necessary to clear the land. The first year defendant sowed oats, turnips, and grass. The next year he sowed grass on a portion and left the rest, some of it ploughed. Witness then asked him to carry out the conditions, but nothing was done, though defendant said he would attend to it. Later he asked witness to transfer the lease to another man, but this witness opposed. The third party, however, went in, and defendant said he would pay the rent if the other man did not. Defendant refused to submit the matter to arbitration. The gorse had spread for over a chain in many places. To Mr Campbell: The man referred to (Biddick) was at present on the land. About half the farm had been cultivated. The grass had run out, and was pretty had with twitch. Defendant trimmed the road hedge the first year, but he would question whether the two end fences were cut. The road fence was in fair condition before defendant took over the land, and had not been cut for two years. A good deal of work was necessary before the land could be properly put back into cultivation. The crop might pay for the trouble. Mr Campbell: You should not come here and say that my client did nothing toward keeping up the terms. • Witness added that defendant had done nothing. The Magistrate: Well, according to your own evidence, defendant did something. Witness: He did not substantially adhere to the lease terms.

Robert McDowell, farmer, of Mayfield, said he had seen the land in question on many occasions, and the prices given on the plans for the clearing of gorse were approximate, made up by witness. He had had a good deal to do with clearing gorse, and he considered his estimate was) a. fair one. Some of the fences were bad, and some were fair. The road fence was as good as any other fence. On the inside, conditions were bad. Defendant had been at work on the gorse, and had had a man working on it. If the work had been done properly there would not be the amount now in evidence. As a farm, the place bad been neglected. He estimated the land would cost £3 an acre to put ready for sowing. Continuing after the luncheon adjournment, witness said it was now too late to prepare the land for solving. J. Scown said lie had been a farmer all his life. He corroborated the former witness’s evidence. The amount claimed was fair and reasonable.

S. 1?. Johnson, County Council ranker. said he knew the land. The condition of the water races was very bad. Gorse was growing in them and 1 over them. The condition was fair when defendant took over the property. Witness had never had trouble with plaintiff in this direction. He agreed with tlife amount of the claim.

To Mr Campbell: The gorse was causing a waste of water. This concluded the case for plaintiff. Mr Campbell said it was a matter of how much they had to pay on the claim. Defendant recognised that he was not even yet cleared from responsibility. He had offered to pay half. As for the hints at arbitration, counsel was always against amateur tribunals of the suggested by plaintiff. Defendant had offered to take the land over for a further year at the same rental, in order to clear it. In the witness-box, defendant said he occupied the land for nearly two years. He transferred the lease to Biddock, which agreement was agreeable to plaintiff, who said he would hold witness responsible. Witness cut both sides of the road fence the first year and he grubbed right round the farm, doing some one year and some the next. It was not till last July that witness learned that the farm was not being properly conducted. Biddock told him the gorse would be grubbed. Witness would undertake to carry on the lease for a further year, clear the gorse and crop it. Even then he would be in pocket. The holding next to that in question had been as bad as this one was now, but had been ploughed and cropped, and the crops were fair average quality, with little sign of gorse. To Mr Kennedy: He let Biddock in, and did all he could for him and his family, and this was what he was getting for his kindness. He put fences and gates on the property ,and it urns now in as good condition, if not better, than when he took it over. David Stowell, retired fanner, of Timaru, said he had been on the land 50 years, and was Government land valuer for South Canterbury for ten years. He examined 1 the land in dispute, and’ found the fences ini fair order. All the 1 gorse could be trimmed Tip by a scythe, a gorse-knife, and a plough for £lO. To Mr Kennedy: It would have been much more profitable for defendant to have cropped the land last year, than for him to do it this year. John Waddell, retired farmer, of Timaru, who also examined the fences and paddocks, said the fences were useful and all right, with one exception, where the water-race was. The paddocks were not in good condition. Recalled, plaintiff, in reply to the Magistrate, said Biddock had been allo"od in nay in the bouse on the land The Magistrate said the lease had not been carried cut as it should hay** been. He gave judgment for plaintiff for £45, being £35 for breach of agreement to properly cultivate the land,

and £lO in connection with the grubbing of gorge. Witnesses’ expenses amounting to £3 2s 6d were allowed, with solicitor’s fee £4 3s, Court costs £2 6s. Infected Sheep. George Chapman, of Windermere, and Langtry Maginness, of Wheatstone, were charged with exposing for sale sheep infected with lice. Mr C. Branigan (Stock Inspector) appeared for the Department. Maginness, who did not appear, was stated to have exposed 120 lambs at the Tinwald yards. Lice were found on six of them. He declined to examine the lambs. Defendant was fined 20s and costs (13s). Mr H. C. Orbell appeared for Chapman, who pleaded guilty, and said 134 lambs were sent to the sale. They had been twice dipped before being sent to the yards. They had been dipped since. Defendant was fined 10s and costs (16s). Civil Business. In the case, State Advances Department v. E. C. I). Withell, claim £B7 13s (costs £2 15s), judgment was given for plaintiffs by default. In a judgment summons ease, George Harper, Pascoe and Buchanan v. H. Neavitt, claim £3 5s 6d, an order was made against the judgment debtor, who did not appear, for the payment of lOr a week, in default four days’ imprisonment.