A CHARLTON WATER DISPUTE.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 947, 19 September 1901, Page 5

A CHARLTON WATER DISPUTE.

INTERIM JUDGMENT. At the Gore Court to-day Mr G. Cruickshank, S.M., gave his interim judgment on a nonsuit point raised by Mtssrs Poppelwell and Inder for the defence in the case (heard last Court day) John Anderson v. Thomas Green, a suit to recover £2O under an agreement concerning ripirinn rights on the Charlton creek, as follows :

At the hearing herein last Court day counsel for the < efeiidant raised the preliminary objection that the plaimiff must fail on the ground that the plaintiff had not joined all his fellow covenantees as coplaintiffs. The point was ably argued by the counsel engaged, and I reserved my decision. I have perused the agreement, and on consideration I have come to the conclusion that there has been no non-joinder, and that the plaintiff is within his rights in suing by himself alone. The question to be answered is this : Is the interest of the covenantees joint or several ? If joint, all must join in the action; if several, they may sue individually. Where each covenantee has a separate interest, as in this case (viz., to receive £2O) the legal effect is that the one covenant becomes a separate covenant with each covenantee, on which separate actions may be brought. The same words may constitute for some purposes a joint and for others a separatecoveirantand have a changeable operation so as to correspond with the different interests of the covenantees under the various agreements in the same deed. Now, in this case, each covenantee has a distinct inteiest to leceive his own £2O for waving the rpnrian rights attnehed to his own faim. Even if the covenant was originally joint there has been a severance by the payment of the claims of two of the covenantees, and this severance will enable the others to sue individually for their own shares. I therefore decide that the action has been rightly brought.