RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Hawke's Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 3892, 7 April 1877, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, April 6. (Before B. 'Beetham, Esq., K.M., and J. A. Smith, Esq., J.P.) DRUNKENNESS. George Stuart, avlio was spoken of favorably by the police as a Avell conducted man, Avas discharged Avithout being fined. FLYNN V. CUILEN. Claim for £11 for use and occupation of a house in the Shakespeare-road. Mr Lee for plaintiff: Mi* Cornford for defendant. The plaintiff had let the house to defendant in December last, the tenancy to commence Avith the new year. The rent agreed upon Avas £1 a Aveek. The term of tenacy Avas to be Aveekly, according to the statement of plaintiff; but according to defendant's statement, there was to be three months' notice on either side. Defendant did not enter into occupation at the time that he rented the house, and j Avhen he Avas ready to do so the circum- | stances that led to the present action had I occurred. There had been a landslip and some of the stuff fell upon the watertank j at the back of the house, "collapsing the tank," as one of the Avitnesses expressed it, so as to render it useless for the purpose of holding Avater. Thereupon Mr Flymi, after clearing aAvay the debris, came to the conclusion — under adA'ice — that the clift' at the back of the house should be cut aAvay sufficiently to ensure the safety of his house. He accordingly set men to Avork at excavating, and had part of the fence pulled doAvn for the admission of carts to take aAvay the earth, stones, &c. When, therefore, the defendant was ready to enter into occupation, Avhich Avas someAvhero about the 26th of February, he found the back part of the house blocked up Avith a heap of stones, the fencing partly down, and the closet just close to the footpath. Ifc was averred on the part of the plaintiff that the house could have been easily let for the same money to other persons, and that the defendant, by keeping possession (though he Avas not in occupation), had prevented plaintiff from obtaining rent from other persons, and therefore it was contended that defendant should pay the rent claimed, particularly as he had been told at the time that he complained as to not being able to occupy the house, that he could pay the rent up to that time and put an end to the agreement. On the part of the defendant it Avas contended that plaintiff had no right to enter j the premises as he had done, and that having rendered the place uninhabitable, he Avas not entitled to any rent Avhatever. Mr Beetham said that the Bench did not think the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount that he claimed. Indeed, if the Bench had been quite clear as to the three months' tenancy they Avould not have considered the plaintiff entitled to airy rent at all for that term, as he had virtually taken possession of the premises. Under the circumstances, lioavover, they would give him a verdict for £5. Judgment for £5, Avith Ss costs. Professional costs and for plaintiff's attendance Avere refused. There Avas no other business before the Court.