Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
This article displays in one automatically-generated column. View the full page to see article in its original form.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, May 10.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

The case Braithwaite v. Laurcrison was continued after we went to press yesterday. —Evidence for plaintiff was given by Patrick J. Bellett, Thomas Cole, James M'Gill, and Walter Carlton. For the defenco, Sir Robert -Stout said that it was not averred that there was any agreement in writing between the two parties. An oral agreement was, however, alleged to have been made, but he (learned counsel) would point out that there was certainly a difference, at all events, regarding two matters—the term and the ooDditions of that term. The only tenancy that could, undqr. the circumstances, be implied was a yearly tenancy. If defendant had known that; L 5 .10s per week was as rental he would have given one month's p^cer,vacated the premises, and thereby, cancelled the agreement; for the Act Btated

that when there was no written agreement j between the parties one month's notice of removal could be given as a means of termi- . nating the tenancy. He contended that the agreement was for L 5 porweek, and furthermore, plaintiff had sent in monthly accounts in accordance with the terms of that agreement—viz., four weeks' rent at L 5 per week. The claim of rent at L 5 10s per week was made up to March 8,1889, and the term was ( evidently completed at that date, because | plaintiff had forwarded an account for one week and four days, which would certainly not havo been done had the term not expired. For the new term entered into on and after March 8, 1889, only L 5 per week had been charged, not L 5 10s. During the three years of the past term plaintiff had never sent in an account at L 5 10s per week, and had never intimated in any possible manner that more than L 5 per week was being charged. Learned counsel further contended that plaintiff could not sue defendant regarding tho alterations and restorations—the latter was not liable. Plaintiff had taken possession after the termination of the tenancy; he had only asked for a removal of the partition erected and alterations effected upon April 11, 1889, and it appeared that plaintiff did not want the interior of the shop altered to its original condition. —F. Laurenßon said that he agreed to pay plaintiff L 5 per week as rent. Plaintiff demurred at first, but ultimately consented, and witness accordingly went into possession. Witness may have objected to paying the sum agreed upon, but could not remember asking plaintiff for a reduction in rent. —To Mr Chapman: The rent was collected by plaintiffs clerks—Messrs Bellett and Hayes—and the accounts sent in read :" To four weeks' rent at L 5 per week, L 20." Evidence was also given by H. B. Smith, G. Marshall, A. Allen, and J. Roach, after which the further hearing of the case was adjourned.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18890511.2.31

Bibliographic details

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT., Evening Star, Issue 7904, 11 May 1889

Word Count
486

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 7904, 11 May 1889

Working