POSSESSION OF LAND

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 134, 2 March 1921, Page 6

POSSESSION OF LAND

CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM. A claim for possession of land was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), when Annie Deckston, of Wellington (Mr. M. Myers) sued Ernest John August, of Lower Hutt (Mr. E. P. Bunny). x , The statement of claim alleged that by agreement between the parties on May 1, 1918, the plaintiff undertook to let, and the defendant to take, certain land and premises ip the Hutt district held by her under Native lease for a term of ten years. The defendant duly took possession of it, undertaking to keep it in good repair and condition, but, it was alleged, had committed breaches of the agreement by failure to repair broken windows, steps, tank, windmill pump, fences, stables, etc. Further allegations were that he had wrongfully removed a fence without applying for written consent* had sublet the smaller dwelling-house on the land, and had failed to pay £23 12s. sd. county rates, and £2 IS. 3d. river board rates. Accordingly, plaintiff claimed possession of the lands, £250 damages for breach of covenant, and money as rent for the use of the land, at the rate of £l6O a year, reckoning from May 1, 1920. . The statement of defence denied that August had committed any of the alleged breaches of covenant, or any breach of the agreement to repair. The statement maintained that the defendant had made all repairs in accordance with the conditions, lad had not neglected to repair the windows, tanks, steps, etc. . In a counter-claim, the defendant maintained that ,there had been a condition precedent that the plaintiff should put in complete order and condition, and render sheep and cattle-prooi. all the boundary fences on the property; and should also grub gorse growing on certain sections of the land. Neither of these conditions, it was alleged, the plaintiff had curried out. It was alleged also that the plaintiff had not had painted the dwelling-house, as agreed upon; and that she had persuaded persons desirous of taking an assignment of the defendant s interest in the lease to break off negotiations, thus depriving him of profit that would have accrued had the assignment been completed. Accordingly, the defendant asked for relief from forfeiture, and claimed the sum of £250 as damages, and the costs of the claim. ‘ Outlining the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Myers said that from the time the defendant took' over the lease the plaintiff had had nothing but trouble from him. There were two houses on .the property, and the defendant had allowed them to get into such a state that the plaintiff was uiiable to insure them. In August, 19-A the parties had commenced litigation before Mr. Justice Edwards, who had found the defenq.int guilty of committing a breach of the covenant not to assign or part with possession of the premises, without the consent of the plaintiff; but the Judge find granted the defendant relief from forfeiture. . For the tefence. Mr. Bunny snid tne place had been kept in good repair, and even it the Court decided otherwise, relief from forfeiture should be given. Evidence 'was given by the defendant, and further evidence will be heard to-day.