COURT OF APPEAL.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 472, 2 April 1909, Page 9

COURT OF APPEAL.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS. QUESTION OF COMPENSATION. ■When tho sittings of the Court of Appeal wero rosuraed yesterday, further argument was heard in the case of Andrew E. Harris, of Mount Somers, v. John Tucker Ford, Ida Frances Peaclie, and Beaucliamp Lassettor iLano, trustees of tho will of E. A.' Peacho Mr. Wilding, of Ohristclnirch, appeared on bohalf of plaintiff, and Mr. CI. Ilarper, of Christchurch (with him Mr. K. Neave, of Christclmrch), for tho defendants. This was a motion, for judgment in connection with a claim for £1000 damages in respect of bodily injuries. Plaintiff alleged .that whilst ho was lawfully 'using a tramway at Mount Ida, which defendants, as lessees, were under nn obligation to keep in repair, ho sustained injuries, which resulted in the loss of a log. These injuries, it was alleged, were caused owing-to tho defective condition of tho tramway. According to plaintiff, £250 which ho had received from diis employers was merely compassionate allowance. Thcf defence to the action was that tho tramway was not- in a defective condition, and that plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. By accepting the sum of £250 from his employers plaintiff had lost his right under Section 16 of tho Workers' Compensation for Accidents Actt to make any further claim. Tho jury had found that ■plaintiff was entitled to £600 damages, and upon tho findings"" plaintiff had moved for judgment. , * Upon tlio conclusion of argument, the Court intimated that it would take time to consider its judgment.

LEASE OF A FARM.

A claim for tho renewal of tlio lease of a farm was involved in tho case of Crespin 'Parker (appellant) versus Reginald Palmer Greville and Mary . Jolly Edwards (respondents) which then came on for hearing before itlieir Honours Justicos Dennis-ton (presiding), Edwards, and Cooper, . Mr. Skorrett, K.C., with him Mr. H. F. Johnston, appeared on behalf of appellant, p.nd Mr: D.'M. Findlay and Mr. J. L. Stout for tho respondents. ■' Tho facts in tho caso. .were. that appellant leased from respondents a farm containing 231 acres at Silverstream. : Thoro was a covenant in tho lease, which was for 9 years from March, 1899, that ' appellant could sccuro a renewal of tho term provided that he had given six months' notice of his intention, and should have performed his covenants. It was provided in tho lease that, appellant should keep the premises and fences in good •repair, insure the buildings, grub up and : eradicate all sweet briar and taiihinu on the farm, and not iallo'w gorse to grow thereon. On the ground that appellant had not duly performed the covenants, respondents, who Jield tho land as trustees, refused to grant a renewal of the lease. Appellant then ihrought an action against respondents for specific performance.' Mr. Justicc Chapman (held that, upon the evidence, appellant had substantially broken tho covenant to eradiI tho tauhinu, "and refused to ' grant specific performance., From this decision an appeal was now brought,'-• Argument was not .concluded when tho Court adjourned until this morning.