HAWERA DISTRICT COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 7833, 5 November 1903, Page 2

HAWERA DISTRICT COURT.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4.

(Before His Honor District JUrdge Kettle).

CIVIL CASE.

"Robert George Marsh v. Oliver Cummins was a claim for £52 special damages and £25 general damages, in respect of premises in High-street leased by defendant from plaintiff for filve years ending May Ist last. Plaintiff's claim was> based on damage alleged to have been done by the defendamt during the currency of his tenancy by having made structural alterations, etc., to the premises, and for having neglected to keep the premises in such repair as was required by the -terms of the 'lease.

Mr Halliwell was for plaintiff and Mr Samuel (instructed by Mr Baiton) for defendant.

Robert Ceorge Marsh?, plaintiff, deposed that he leased the premises concerned to defendant under the terms of the lease produced. The lease was for .15 years from 1890 at £17 10s per year ground lent. The building 011 "the ground was placed on -the section in IS9G, having been removed from, Normariby. The buildings had possibly 'been in existence then for afoout fifteen years. He had the buildings examined by Mr Brodi'ick, architect, who' reported very favourably upon the suitability of the building for removal. Upon being re-erected in Howera the building was renovated. Subsequently it was partitioned off. There were two staircases in the building when Mr Cummins took possession. - If the property were his now he would replace the staircase which Avould cost at the veny least £IC. Witness never saw Jfitzsimpum's removing the' staircase and partitions were taken down without witness' knowledge or consent. Witness asked defemdant why he had altered the place and defendant replied that he did not see bow it mattered to witness as the parts removed would be reinstated. The partition was a substantial one. A tena-nt named Burke vyas defendant's predecessor. At the time Burke left the place was in good repair. ' It was unoccupied for a few months before Mr Cummins took it. A copper' boiler, which had cost 30s or 355, that had been set in had also been removed. A doorway had been very roughly C ut out— apparently only a few months before Mr Cummins' tenancy elided. Same shelving that had cost about £4 had also disappeared. Ho never consented to certain holes that had been cut in the walls. When the shops were Jot to defendant they were in good condition. Three or four days after defendant left witness inspected the premises and found them in very trad condition — they were "almost uurec-og-nisable." The premises are in a better condition now than when defendant left. To His Honour : Defendant was hi possession for five years. The life of paper on walls was about three or four years.

Examination continued, witness could have got fully £200 for the goodwill of the lease, if the building had been h\ good condition ; as it was ho sold it for £150.

Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr Samuel. The buildings were now about 22 years old. Witness considered he was £100 out of pocket as a result of the dani'ages. Mr Samuel : Rubbish, rubbish. I Shall not ask you another question. Alexander S. Laird deposed that he had examined the premises which were in a very dilapidated condition and not in a reasonably fit state for occupation.

At this stag« the luncheon adjourn ment took place.

Upon resuming, Mr Samuel annauinced that the parties bad artnved at a settlement subject to his Honour's approval, it was for the payment by defendant to plaintiff of £30,- in addition to the sum of £G 5s 4d already paid into Court, costs to be included in tho above amount.

His Honour said he was pleased that an agreement had been come to and trom what he had heard he thoug-ht the settlement a fair one.