S.M. COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVII, Issue 35, 9 February 1906, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

YESTERDAY. (Before Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M.) Undefended Cases.—Judgment for plaintiff was entered in the following undefended cases:—A. Challinor Purchas v. Andrew Snowden (Dargaville). £10 4/; R. 11. Abbott and Co. v. W. Burgovne (Awaliiil North), £13 13/11: George M<?Bnde v. John Best (Matata), £4 10/: A. Cleave and Co. v. John MeCracken (New Plymouth), £4 7/6; Rcnnie McNaughton v. Burteushaw, £1 7/6: W. Guuson aud Co. v. Robt. MrOardle CKawhia), £4 11/10: A. S. Patterpon anjl Co. v. Fred. Soppett (Mercer), £5 10/0; Hjogh Black v. Theodore Webster, 12/6; Sargood. Son, and Ewen v. E. A. Dan<*>, £89 L 5/0: E. S. G. Harrison and v. Joseph Fairweather, £17; Tonsrxi Garlick Co., Ltd., v. V. J. Soreuson and , Isabella Sorensou. £2 11/6: Geo. B. Warj man v. C. -E. Taylor (Otahuhu). £6 15/6: same v. W. Cursou, £2 10/6: F. W. Smith and Co.. r. J. Sorenson. £3 11/; A. J. Watkrns v. A. Furness (Palmerston ??.), £2& 7/6: Vanguard G.M. Co., Ltd., v. H. rx Boles iTharacs>. £4 3/4; Stonex and White v. James C. Hyland, (Taumarunui), 10/; G. Richardson & Co. v. J, W. Orr r (Inglewood), f6 6/8;. A. Erickson v. George Walker (Hawera), £6 14/; Meldruru and Browne v. William Stokes (Rotorua), £4 5/: Vanguard G.M. Co. v. Edward Bain (Walkino), £2 1/8: J. T. McHuch v. G. Gillman Smith, £12 10/; V. J. Sorensen v. Mrs Estall. £1 7/2; Crawford and Tattprsall v. .1. Millar, £2; G. A. Coles and Co. v. W. J. Finch, £28 15/4; J. G. Young v. Mrs Glover (Grey-street), £3" 6/9; David McKenzie v. Charles Poppleton. £1 13/8; Alexander Leith v. Alfred Dare, £1 15/: Arch. Clark and Sons, Ltd., v. D. Jones (Westport), £22 1/10.

A Wages Claim.—Hearing of tbe case in which J. W. Moore sued J. T. JuUan for £1 on the ground that plaintiff's wages were paid him £1 short, was concluded. Judgment was Riven for defendant with costs, his Worship holding that the evidence for the defence that the wages had been paid in full was entirely satisfactory while he was rot satisfied with the evidence for the plaintiff. A Leasing , Agreement. — H E. \a!le and R. W. de Montalk sued ElUabeth Anne Scott for £100 dam- ? gW i m espect of an agreement to lease. The case for the plaintiffs was that on April 7 Mrs Scott, a boardinghoueekeeper, and plaintiffs eDtered into an agreement by which Mrs Scott undertook to become tbe tenant of a property known as "The Avenue." Karangahape road, for :jl years at an annual rental of £156. there being a provision by which the defendaut agreed to effect improvements to the value of £25<>. Subsequently to the agreement, being entered into, Mrs Scott declined to sign the lease. Plaintiffs had to seek another tenant, and they sneceeded in obtaining one, the new agreement iucludlng a section in Karangahape road, the average annual rental being £170, of which tbe annual valtin of the- added section was about £50, so that a loss of over £30 a year ivas sustained. They therefore claimed £100 as damages.—Mr .J. Thornes, land agent, said that the rental at which the property was let wae a fair one, and that £150 would be a fair claim for breach of the agreement. — The defence was that the lease contained a condition which it was impossible to fulfil, the condition being that a Mr Entrican shonld sign a guarantee for the carrying out of the improvements. Mr Entrican refused to sign, and defendant was then Informed by Mr E. E. Vaile that the agreement was null and void. This was on the Satnrday following the signing of the agreement, and Mr E. Vailc then said that a fresh agreement would have to be drawn up, and meanwhile she was not to touch the property. On the following Monday Mr Vaile came to her house and asked what damages she was prepared to pay if she did not go on with the lease. He was then willing to accept defendant as her own surety for the improvements, but she refused to go on with the lease, and on April Jl wrote declining to proceed further. Mr Vaile «aw her subsequently, and asked what damazes she was prepared t'> pay. She replied that she had not damagPd the property, and that the lease being void &he was not entit'ed to pay any damage. She would not go on with the leaeo subsequently, hecanse when Mr Eflrie told h?r that it was nail aud void she considered the matter was at an end. Mr McVoaerh. for plaintiffs, pointed ont that the asrreemetit provided that the defendant should deposit £100 or olitain Mr "&rttrioan T i« guarantee, so thnt she was in a position to carry nnt the condition. Defendant said that she had never agreed to deposit £100, and was not aware that this was in the asreement. Mr H.iekett. for defendant, submitted that if Mr Earle said the oontrar-t was void the agreement was therefore off. His Worship submitted that it was fjuite clear that defendant was bound under the oritrinal agreement to take the property for 31 years. Mrs Scott had apparently' considered the matter off whon the "agreement was signed, and he urged upon the plaintiffs that they should " take a fair view of the matter of damages. With tbis object in view he would adjourn the question of dnmajree for n week. Mr McVeash said that his clients were prepared to accept any reasonable offer, adflIng that while they could have claimed up to £400, whereas they had only asked