SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 842, 14 June 1910, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

SEQUEL TO A LONG CASE. DAIRY FARMER'S LEASE. In tlio case of Reginald Palmer Greville and Mrs. Mary Jolly Edwards versus Crospin Parker, dairy farmer, of Haywards, an action which succeoded lengthy litigation and an appeal to tho Privy Council, his Honour the Chief Justice gavo judgment yesterday. Tho claim was for possession of a farm of 203 acres, known as Hayward's Estate. Parker's term of nine years as lessee of the farm expired in March, 1908, but 110 had since been "holding over" the property (which was owned by tho plaintiffs as trustees). The lease contained a covenant for renewal, which was refused, however, on tho ground that Parker had failed to comply with tho provisions of the lease. Parker claimed to be entitled to a renewal, and instituted a suit for specific performance, remaining in possession in tho meantime. When a decision was given against Parker, the plaintiffs sued for possession, and for £277 mesne profits in lieu of rent. Mr, D. M. Findlay appeared for tho plaintiffs, and Mr. iL Johnston for . clio defendant. His Honour, in giving judgment, re- j marked that tho evidence had been very unsatisfactory. The only witnesses called' tor the plaintiffs were a dairy farmer 1 who had been sixteen months in the district, and Greville, oue of the plaintiffs, and a trustee of the estate. The former, so far as his Honour could, gather, had 110 experience in valuing farms. He had .said that ho was prepared to give a rent above what the defendant Parker had been paying, but his 'Honour did not think that his one offer could properly bo held to fix the value. Tho other witness, Greville, based his estimate on, what 110 thought the farms could yield. Suppose, said his Honour, that tho farm could maintain the number of cows ho thought, his estimate of what the rent should be would leave little or no profit to the lessee. The defendant, Parker, 011 the other hand, had called no evidence, but rested his defence on the rent fixed nine years beforo in tho lease, and on the fact that he was to renew, and at the same rent. His failuro to get a renewal was because of a breach in his covenants. Part of tho land had been taken by the Government—according to a witness, the most valuable part. Looking at the reason why tho defendant Parker had not given up possession, his Honour thought, that a fair amount for mesne profits for the twenty-five months' possession would be <£115, for which judgment would be given, with seven guineas costs of the hearing, and with costs of witnesses and disbursements. •His Honour presumed that tho other costs had been awarded.

A DAM IN THE WAIWETU. FLOODING RISKS. The Wahvetu Stream caso, concerning the effect of a flock manufacturers' dam upon land farther up-stream, was continued yesterday before liis Honour the Chief Justice. Tho action was brought by Karl liasmussen, farmer, of Waiwetu, who claimed .£!SO damages from Edith Dorothy Ellis and John Eli Ellis, Hock manufacturers, and who sought also an injunction of the Court restraining the defendants from causing flooding or injury to his land. Mr." W. F. Ward appeared for tho plaintiff, and llr. C. B. Morison for the defendants. The hearing of evidence" for the plaintiff was concluded on Thursday last, and Mr. Morison opened the defendants', case yesterday. Tho witnesses called for tho defence were: Gerald Fitzgerald (civil engineer), Everard W. Scaton (civil engineer), Samuel Smart Mason (farmer), William Tnit (settler), David Bell (farmer), John Ward (farmer), James Brown (farmer), Joseph Swain (farmer), John Eli, Ellis (one of tho defendants), and .William Henry Ellis. Evidence was adduced with intent to prove that the dam did not wrongfully obstruct the natural flow of the water in tho stream, that it did not cause the water to erode Rasmussen's land, or cause appreciable damage. It was urged that the defendants were entitled to maintain the dam as at present, and witnesses stated that, if an injunction were granted, irreparable dami>"e would be dono to the defendant's business.

Argument was deferred until two o'clock to-morrow afternoon. A DIVORCE MATTER. DECREE ABSOLUTE GRANTED. A decree absolute was asked for yesterday in the case of "William Alexander Douglas v. Ainieo Eunico Douglas, a decree nisi having beeu granted on August 7, 1908. Mr. l>. Levi appeared for the petitioner, and Mr. A. L. Hcrdmaa for the respondent. The. Chief Justice granted the decree absolute, no objection being raised, and allowed the arrangement made regarding the custody of the children, that ono should remain' with the petitioner and the other with the respondent.