LEASEHOLD DISPUTE

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 51, 29 August 1934, Page 5

LEASEHOLD DISPUTE

SETTLEMENT ARRANGED

In the Supreme Court yesterday a case concerning a lease of land was heard. The plaintiff was William Geoffrey Hughes Field,, of Waikanae, farmer, and the 'defendant was Kuraiti Tamaki, of Waitara. Mr. Justice Ostler occupied the Bench. In the statement of claim it was set out that, the plaintiff was'the lessee under a memorandum of lease dated April 23, 1925, registered in the Land Transfer Office, by virtue of which Wi Ritatona, of Waikanae, leased to the plaintiff a piece of land containing 85 acres 3 roods, being part of section 42, Ngarara West A block. By order of the Native Land Court tho lease was now vested in the defendant. On March 31, 1934, one George Matthews, claiming to be the agent-of the defendant, purported to re-enter upon the land, on behalf of the defendant, owing to nonpayment of rent-by the plaintiff, and the defendant thereby claimed to have determined the lease. The plaintiff denied that the defendant re-entered upon the land either on March 1 or on any other day, and said further that any such alleged re-entry was not sufficient to determine the lease. The plaintiff claimed, as against the separate estate.of the defendant, a declaration that the lease had not been determined, .and was a valid and subsisting lease; or, in the alternative, relief :sgainst the forfeiture of the lease; also, costs of the action.

';' The statement 'of defence asserted that George Matthews was", the authorised •agent- of the defendant to re-enter upon and take possession of the land, and did re-enter and actually recover possession. The' defendant said further that the plaintiff in person, and- also by his agent, ■William Hughes Field, acquiesced in the reentry by,the defendant's agent, George Matthews,.and the recovery by her of possession. '-'■' -.■■'. ■ .'■

Mr.vW.' Perry,: with1 him Mr. G. R. Powles, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr.'W.-B. Brown, with him Mr. W. Heine, tor the- defendant. .

After' hearing ■statements by. counsel in regard to the case, his Honour indicated that os i'ar as he could he would apply the provisions of. the Mortgagors and Tenants Relief Act, but he suggested that the parties might consult and see if they could urniTige a settlement.

Con uric] adopted thfi .siicftcstion made by liis TToiiniu', and subscqnciiilly informed ilip Convt that ii sc'ttlr.niont ' lnul bet.'ii nn-ansod ii[ion terms ngrood to bchvecn the iiui lies.