DEAL IN A FARM.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 41, 17 February 1920, Page 2

DEAL IN A FARM.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. Judgment was given at the S.M. Court this morning by Mr. .1. \V. Poynton, S.M., In the case of s. G. 'Chambers, as liqiilda- : tor for Bennett McDonald. Ltd. (Mr. J. <i. i Haddowl.Ov. William .Peter Simpson (Mr. ] Durham). In this case defendant verbally J promised to pay a deposit and sign an i J went Into possession without doing' either. iand was sued for l'S!> 18/7 for use and oc- ! signed some such an agreement, but as It I was not signed neither side produced a I copy. I Ills Worship said the question was whether In such a case the owner could ! recover for use and occupation. An action ; ■ for use and occupation was usually one j where a person entered and occupied the ! due was a sort of compensation in lieu of rent. All the authorities showed that there must be something in the nature of an undertaking express or implied to pay for the use of the place, and generally the mere fact of the plaintiff's ownership of the property and accupation by defendant was sufficient prlma facie evidence of such ' an undm-staudinj;. An action for use nnd i founded on the relation of landlord and | tenant, and therefore required e/lUence of j ian occupation by the permission of and j [under contract with the plaintiff. In this i case the evidence proved that there was no I such contract between the parties, and it was of an entirely different nature, that of vendor nnd purchaser. Mr. l'oynton said it could not he turned into payment I for use and occupation at the will of the vendor. Judgment was given foe the defendant with costs.