Adair v. Croft.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 223, 17 November 1888, Page 2

Adair v. Croft.

At tha Magistrate’s Court on Thursday the case'of W. Adair v. A. W, Croft, claim £7 10a for rent of a section, came on tor hearing, Mr Cnrisp appeared for the plaintiff and Mr W. Brassey for the defendant. W. Adair deposed to purchasing the lasso of section 139, Gisborne, from Messrs Parnell and Boylan, ths defendant at that time being in possession of part of the section. Ha had been receiving from Mr Croft tha rent under the lease (produced) which had expired on the Ist July last. At the termiua’ion of tha lease the defendant tried to force some coven, ant on him. There wars now about four months’ rent due, but his claim was for three mouths. The defendant had several times promised to pay the amount. By Mr Brassey : Had told Mr Croft that he would renew the lease for five years. Ha did not tell the defendant that he could remove the buildings.

Mr Brown, clerk at Mr Aiair's, said he had rendered the account to Mr Croft, who had on one or two occasions promised to pay ths same. He knew there was some dispute between ths parlies.

Mr Chrisp submitted that tha o'.aim was tor use end occupation, which they ware in law legally entitled to. Mr Booth said they could not receive auy evidence re the buildings, at there was now a case on appeal. Mr Brassey said the question to decide was whether there was a contract for use and occupation, but there was no evidence to that effect.

Mr Booth said the evidence before the Court was not sufficiently strong to prove that there was a contract for use aud occupation. He would therefore give a nonsuit. Mr Brassey applied for £2 2s, aolioitor*e expenses, the case having to be adjourned from last Court day. Mr Chrisp strongly objected, and said that only £1 Is should be allowed. Mr Brassey : My friend gets very fiery when tbe matter of costs comes up. Mr (jhriap: lam disgusted with your conduct in this case. - '• Mr Brasaey: Your oaae, you mean. It was then shown that the costa Of the adjournment were costs in the oaUH and the £2 23 fee was allowed.)