SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5411, 31 January 1883, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

NIBI PBIUB SITTINGS.

TmseiMLT, Janttabt 30. - [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and ■. v .. a Special Jnry/j His Honor took his seat at 11 o'clock. BTABK V HAWKEN AND ItAWKEN. Mr Cowlishaw for the plaintiff, and Mr Holmesforthe defendants. This was an action MwhicK the plaintiff, as assignee of the reversion of a lease, sued to recover £500 damages for the breach of certain covenants. ,

The declaration set out that the lease was in respect of a farm of 150 acres, situated on the Styx river, the term being for ten years, and the rental £175 per annum; that the defendant*! broke certain covenants of the lease in that they did not : keep and maintain all buildings, fences, gates, ditches, and improvement in good repair and condition; • that they did not cultivate the land in ia husbandlike manner; that they did not cut and clip the hedges and live fences once a year j that they did not keep the land free from thistles and other J, noxious weeds; that they did not at the expiration of the lease deliver up seventy-five acres of the land properly laid down in pernuinent English grass; and that they did not ibreak up and cultivate all the land unbroken and uncultivated at the time of tbx3 execution of the lease so far as they possibly could. Mr Cowlishaw having opened the case for the plaintiff, led '.the" following .evidence:— ' : '•■. . '.'-:'■'■': .' ■ ."-[. ": ■

James Andrews, of Kaiapoi, deposed that he knew Mr Homer's farm at the Styx. It was formerly occupied by the defendants. Went over it on the 27th May last. Thelease expired on the ISth April. Was accompanied over the farm by two Jaraes Johns and Mr Edward Amos. Went to examine the farm on behalf of the plaintiff and the incoming' tenant, Mr John Wright.' Speaking gene rally, the condition of the Vhole: farm was wretched. There were sevtrfi paddocks. In paddock No. 1, of the goredi live fence four and a half chains wasted putting and the ditch cleaning; allowed Hβ 3d for this. Portions of the fence did not seem to have been cut for two years. ■ In of the paddocks the quantity laid down in grass was 26 acres 3 roods and 19 perches deficient. There should have been 75 acres. Estimated this damage at £134. 7s. The gate posts and culvert in No. 2 paddock required £3 10s to make them good. In No. 2 paddock 7f chains of thti gorse fence had not been cut for twelve months. The cost to make this good was; 11b 6Jd. The gate was badly broken, the damage done being Sβ. The land was in a very foul condition. Thirty-five acres were corered with rubbish and weeds, which had been allowed to ' seed. Estimated this at £52 10s. The witness described in detail damages to the farm, amounting in the aggregate to £293 iSsGd.

Cross-examined —Inspected the farm on behalf of Mr Homer, tihe_ landlord, and Mr Wright, the incoininu tenant. Didnot make the measnremiinte of the fences himself. That was dorse by Messrs Homer and Wright. Mr Wright, was to get an allowance for the valuations. Was acting for Mr Wright. The measurements of the land were not made by -witness and the other valuers, but by Mr Pavitt, licensed surveyor. Pointed out to Mr Pavitt what they considered- to be in grass, and he measured it. . '

At this stage the Court adjourned for half-an-hour. On resuming, Mr Holsies asked if-His Honor would allow a forUier adjournment, as there was a probabfjity of the parties arriving at a eettlenieni. His Honor would do co' willingly, as the case was one more for than for the Supreme Court.

I The Court accordingly adjourned for h«}f..q.Ti.hrrnT J ftfld pn xpgnwiiTig, : Mr Cowlishaw said that a settlement had been parti; agreed upon, but one of the defendants was six miles out of town, and his signature could not be obtained uatQ half-past four o'clock; ,.-. After some discussion, it was decided to proceed with the case, v . John Wright deposed that he occupied the farm in question, being a tenant under Mr Homer. Witness described in detail the condition of the farm when he took possession, corroborating the evidence of the previous witness. . Mr Holmes cross-examined the witness at some length. , . ■ ' James Johns, fanner, living at the Styx, deposed that he inspected the farm in company with the witness Andrews and Mr Amyes. Had heard Mr Andrews* evfc dence as to the valuations made. ' It was correct. *

Edward Amyes gave similar evidence. William Homer, farmer, deposed that he was proprietor of the farm. Was present when the previous witnesses inspected it. Endorsed all they said as to its condition. The damages, owing to the farm being out of repair, they fixed at JE297. Witness had to allow that sum to the incoming tenant. ■' ' ~ \ '

Cross-examined-—Was the real plaintiff in the case. - The defendants offered arbitration, but witness bad already appointed three valuers. Told the defendants seven years ago that they had made money *ff the farm, and he would not let them off the lease. Never said he would rain the defendants. Did not refuse to go to arbitration, and tell a man named Frame that he would go to law and make the defendants bo that they should not rub one against another. Mr Stark, the nominal plaintiff and mortgagee, suggested that he should let the matter go to arbitration, but he refused, as he had already appointed valuers.. > . ........ This closed the plaintiff's case. Mr Holmes opened for the defence, and called Charles Overton, farmer, who deposed that he inspected the farm in September or October. Mr Cowlishaw said that was' six months after the defendants left. Witness was examined as to the oonditio* of the farm. ..■■.■ Albert Miles Philpot, farmer, deposed that portions of the land were subject to floods, and he had been shooting over it when it was under water. . It was not practicable to keep the land free from weeds when under corn crops. The witness was examined at length as to tne state of the farm. Thomas Frame, farmer, living in the Papanni district, gave aimilay evidence as to the swampy nature of the land in the district and its liability to'weeds. Mr Holmes asked—What would be the cost of putting the land in grass with a crop ? His Honor ruled that the question was not relevant unless it could be shown that it would enable the jury to arrive at what it would take to put the land into grass alone. ' Mr Holmes contended that the question was relevant if he showed that the grass could be laid down with the crop, if the Court ruled against him, he would ask his Honor to take a note of the point. His Honor would certainly not do so. Mr Holmes said then he would be obliged to put in a " bill of exceptions." After some discussion, his Honor asked Mr Cowlishaw if the point was worth contending. They would only be wasting time arguing about" bills of exceptions." The examination of the witness was then continued at length. William Munro, farmer, gave pif'l'v evidence. • ■ : • ■ •

Cross-examined—On the 15th May, 1878, signed the following document:—-"We the undersigned, having, read Homer's covenants'with .Messrs Hawken, declare that they are not fulfilled.; The place is in a dilapidated -state, the fences not cut, and the gates all gone and smashed." — Daniel Krase, farmer, said he owned land adjoining the farm in question. It was liable toinoods, and it was impossible to keep it free from weeds. The land bad been fallow for two years, and still "it was full of weeds. In the winter of 1881 a boat could have sailed over the land.

Cross-examined—When Hawken took the land in 1872 it was liable to.be flooded, but was not so bad as subsequently,, because when Hawken took the land it was covered with' flax, docke, and other weeds. -- He supposed they took it on an improving lease. ■ '

Walter Goodland, builder, of Papanni, gave evidence as to the state of the gates on the farm.

William Ponninghouse. deposed that he repaired pome of the fences for Mkmtb Hawken about ten months ago. James Gulliver, ploughman-, said' thai he tried to plough up the portion of the land left unbroken, bnt was unable to do bo owing to its boggy nature, and the presence of wood in the ground. Cross-examined—The crops grown en the land:were very.dirty. Some of the seed sown came from the crops. This closed the case for the defence. Learned counsel having 7 , addressed ' the jury, his Honor summed up. , s. ' The jury, after an absence of about threequarters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiff, damages .£l5O. The Court rose at 8.25 p.m., until this morning at 11 o'clock.