YESTERDAY CONCLUDED.

Auckland Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 156, 5 July 1887, Page 5

YESTERDAY CONCLUDED.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Ward.)

Tlie Occidental Motel Difficulty. Ellen Hauding v. Patrick Gleeson.—Claim, L 1,500, damages for trespass.—Mr Hugh Campbell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper (instructed by Mr W. If. Armstrong) for the defendant.—ln empannelling tliejury the right of challenge was very freely exercised by the defendant, while the plaintiffchallengecl three jurors.— In opening the case Mr Campbell stated that the plaintiff (Mrs Harding) had been lessee of the Occidental Hotel,of which defendant was the owner. In October last defendant leased the ahove premises to plaintiff until March, 1892, at a rental of LlO 12s Gd per week, and the land adjoining for L 3 7s Gd per week additional. In March 1887, however, defendant forcibly took possession of the premises and the stock of liquor therein, and .expelled the plaintiff whereby the plaintiff was put to considerable loss in means and by credit. The defence was, that plaintiff by failing to pay her rent and insurance risks according to covenant, afforded defendant the right to re-enter the premises, and that therefore he was fully justified in what he had done. The defendant also put in a counter claim of LSC for rent and L3O 12s Gd for rates.— Ellen Harding, the plaintiff, deposed that she was formerly lessee of the Occidental Hotel, but had not been in business since the 30th of March last. She was a tenant of Patrick Gleeson under the deed of memorandum (produced and admitted), and v.'as in possession on 22nd March, on which day ho put bile-bailiff (Mr Duke) in. They came into the house together. Gleeson asked how she was going to pay tho rent, and witness asked him why he did not come as he promised, before the sale took place, meaning Mr Ehrenfriod's entry under bill of sale over the furniture. Mr Gleeson said before this that before Mr Ehrenfried came in he would let the rent run on and come in first. This was tho reason she made the remark, but he said ho wanted no more nonsense, but wanted his rent. Sho told him he had a right to send aud get his rent before Mr Ehrenfried sold up. He tken put Mv Duke in and told him to take charge of the bar. The rent was then paid up to the 14th March. Duke went behind the bar and stayed all that night and until the 30th March. He was in and out all the time, and his daughters wero there taking charge of the bar. She had stock in the bar, and Duke kept selling on just tho same as when plaintiff was in possession.. She gave him no authority to do so. He also had the keys of the beer and spirit cellars. Witness next day went into the bar to get some papers, bills, and things. Duke followed her, and said ho was in possession, and responsible for what was there. The value of what was in the bar and cellars was £I~>. They went on selling all the week. Witness's ordinary business in the bar averaged from £70 to £80 a week, and out of this slie could have paid her rent had she not been interfered with, A day or two after the 22nd Gleeson offered her ±"50 for what was in the bar, and to go out. Duke made himself very disagreeable while in the house. He would not allow them coal or to have a fire in the place, but Gleeson did nothing during this time until Tuesday, the 30th. She went out that day, and when she came back the house was closed. No demand had been made on her before this. She met Duke at tho top of the lane, and he told her she was not to go into the house again, but she went round the back way and got in at tho window, and then found the inmates in the diningroom, four of her own family,Mr Monaghan, and the housemaid. Duke ordered her out, and said that if she did not go out she would be put out and all the rest, and he threw the document produced into her hands, saying those were his orders. (This was the notice of re-entry, signed by Mr Gleeson, and the signature wns admitted by Mr Cooper.) There were a great many, some seven or eight, with Duke in tho house and under his orders. She went out because he told her if she did not clear out she would be put out ; that they would all bo out Defore dark. She claimed L 1,500. There was LI,OOO she could have got for the place, as she had arranged to sell to Mrs Lynch for that amount for the furniture and goodwill of the lease. When the furniture was sold by Mr Ehrenfried ie fetched L 207. She claimed LSOO for her stock, loss of credit, business, character and loss of time. Under cross examination the witness said that a friend of hers, Mr Compton, made her a present of the bill of sale over the furniture (some LS00), and she gave a bill of sale over tho furniture to Mr Ehrenfried when sho got the lease. Mr Compton gave her tho bill of sale of LSOO or L 220. —Annie Gallagher, domestic servant, and Fanny Harding, daughter of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence. The Court then adjourned.