SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2273, 15 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. This Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The civil oases of the Supreme Court were resumed at 10 a.m. STUBBS V. CHINNEEY. In this case Thomas Stubbs was plaintiff and Charles Ohinnery defendant. The pltaintiff sought to recover possession of certain premises demised to the defendant, and situate at Oxford, on the ground that the defendant had not fulfilled the conditions of the lease except as regarded paying the rent. The plaintiff further sued to recover €4OO for mesne profits. The defendant pleaded a denial of all the material allegations contained in the plaintiff’s declaration, _ „ Mr Joynt, with him Mr Bruges, for plaintiff. , Mr George Horpor for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff was that the defendant had leased from him the premises in question under a lease containing a number of covenants. The premises comprised 475 acres of land, with buildings, &o„ thereon, at a rental of £4OO a year, and the term was for ton years from June, 1879. It was alleged that the defendant systematically neglected the premises and allowed them to fall into disrepair, so much so that in April, 1881, notice was given him by the landlord that he intended to inspect the premises. The defendant, however, declined to allow the inspection to take place and threatened violence against the plaintiff. An order of the Supreme Court was, however, obtained, and the inspection took place. It was then found that numerous breaches of the of the lease had taken place, and the action was brought. , , . Mr George Harper appealed for leave to amend the pleas of defendant, by putting in a waiver of one of the covenants, viz., to keep the live fences cut and trimmed in a husbandlike manner, the waiver being that the plaintiff had received rent with knowledge of the breach. Mr Joynt objected that this must bo a matter of fresh plea, and could not be admitted as an amendment. Mr Harper quoted the case of Bird v National Bank ot New Zealand, to show that the Judge had power to allow the amendment as asked, and also quoted from “Cole on Ejectment,” p. 426. . _ His Honor said ho was with Mr Harper as to the amendment being made. The only queotion was upon what terms was he to have the amendment required. Mr Harper cited Laurie v Scofield, 4, L. 8.; C.P. 422. After further argument, Mr Joynt agreed to the additional plea being inserted on the condition that defendant should not claim costa on these two points if i unsuccessful. Mr Joynt, having addressed the jury, called evidence in support of his case, i The case was proceeding wnen we went to L press.