KAISER AND FARMER.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 91, 17 April 1913, Page 8

KAISER AND FARMER.

, , EVICTION FAILURE. AMUSING SEQUEL TO A SPfiEQH. - '- The Kaiser declared in a recent speech that he had "thrown. out" a tenant < 'farmer on his estate at Oadmen because -be was "no good." The farmer, Herr • Holmuth Sohst, bad his revenge in tbe . law courts on-March 1. • • The Emperor instituted legal • proceed.ings for the eviction of Herr Sohst. T^he courts of the Elbing district, in which '•_ Cadinen is situated, decided that,instead . of "throwing out" Herr Sohst, the Kaiser ; must permit him to-remain on the estate I for another five years. The verdict de-' ' scribed Herr Soh>st*3 legal position as "not only not imdebatable, as the plain- • tiff alleged, but also thoroughly ' able." ' His suit was therefore and the/costs of'the'proceed- : ings assessed against him. v This is . Herr Sohsi's third, successive ' legal victory over the Kaiser, iffis Ma- • jesty now has in his tenant a wwrthy ';; successor to the miller of Botedam, who J';J refused to' obey the mandate of Frederick ; the Great to vacate his miD adjacent to = the palace because "there are still judges - an Berlin." ~ NOTICE TO QUIT.J. These latent proceedings were based on a notice to vacate on July I, 1913, the premises Herr Sohst occupied under a ."twenty-year, lease, dating from 1898. ; The Kaiser.claimed the right to give his ; tenant six months' notice at any time, subject to indemnities of £500, £750, ." and £400, the amount depending on the _ .exact date.J - The notice sent to Herr ' Sohst in December, .1912. offered an in- : demnity of £400. The farmer contended •that the notice \va6 a viola-tion of the ~. Uease, tlie terms" of which did not give. :." bis Majesty privilege to .terminate it at ■J pleasure. The lease, the defendant averred, was so drawn .that it, must be a aJnatter 'f or the. court to interpret it in - accordance -with the. principles of "good . fa-ithand business morals." The Emperor's , Lroubles with Herr Sohst .date from .an .attempt to compel 1 tbe latter to pay the cost of expensive , improvements on the leased, premises. "The Kaiser sought .to force him tobuild a residence, costing, £1,000. Refusing to --do so, Herr Sohst- w;as sued, but was-only _ ordered to make some minor repairs on " ibe e_v>isting residence at a cost of £35 . or. £40., . . „ "- '. • ~.■''' '.. Xlien;.the Kaiser asked Herr Soh6ttb ; pay one-fifth of the cost of a new bowse He again declined, was sued, and was''de- . 1 eated in thu first' instance, but be won iy-th all the other courts and finally before •iv J^P"^ 1 Supreme Court, to which t the Kaiser earned the case. < - The Kaiser is reported to be hfehlr inn^'° V ' r .^ e '™Weataßfc nSriety the entire mcident ha__ ca., \Zj, ™S an **£%*> £* > .partial investagatrion of it ' w. an^.. m : : 3arly; wants toW **££«*£ . anspired in may, ia his • ißexHn, that be b__d m ■fceen grown aW fo^lS v 1 * > %* 4 »d ; fare be became a Mt-T:,'-'