SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXIX, Issue 3778, 28 June 1899, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED WRONGFUL EVICTION. (Before Mr Justice Edwards.) A civil action was hoard yesterday in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Edwards and a jury of twelve, in which damages were claimed for an alleged eviction from a farm. The plaintiff, Cyril W. Tanner, solicitor, of Wellington, sued Mary Jolly Smith (as executrix of the will of the late Thomas Hayward), Reginald P. Grevillc, surveyor, Pahiatua, and Crispin Parker, of Wellington, farmer, claiming (1) £4OO for alleged trespass by the defendants (in entering upon a farm of which ho had been in possession for ten years under a lease from the late Thomas Hayward and Robert James Kells), and for wrongful eviction from the farm : (2) £2OO for the alleged conversion of stock, goods and effects of the plaintiff ; (3) plaintiff seeks an injunction restraining the defendants from continuing and repeating the alleged acts of trespass. The statement of defence sets forth that if the plaintiff were in possession of the farm at the time of the alleged trespass, the defendants were within their rights in entering upon the farm, because the plaintiff had forfeited his lease, the terms of which were that he must pay rent punctually and Steep all fences and buildings and the farm generally in good condition. If the farm were not kept in good condition the defendants contended that they had power in terms of the lease to re-enter upon the farm. Mr M. Chapman appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. *' Evidence given by the plaintiff was to the effect that "he left on the farm goods and chattels, stock (including about 170 sheep), a quantity of hay, and a lot of splendid grass feed. He thought he had lost £2OO on the goods and chattels, and about £l2O in four months by the loss of the grass feed. He had also repaired the house. He denied having left the fences in much worse repair than when he took the farm, and said they were in fairly good repair when- he loft. A deal of evidence was heard as to the condition of the farm from overgrowth of weeds and the state of the fences. R. P. Greville, one of the defendants, in evidence, stated that the farm was so overgrown, and in such bad repair, that he had advised that the plaintiff’s lease be determined. Witness lad given instructions that beyond putting the plaintiff’s goods and chattels togetbe. - for , sate keeping, they were not to be interfered with. No demand bad ever been made for the delivery of the plaintiff’s goods and. chattls. Alary Jolly Smith, also one of the defendants, said she bad never recognised the plaintiff as the lessee of Air Hayward’s farm, although she knew be bad something to do with ; t, having :«oen him upon; the property. Air Kells always paid the rent to witness. Mr Skerrett asked for a non-suit on the grounds that there was no evidence to support an action for trespass, and that, upon the plaintiff’s own case there was evidence justifying the re-entry upon the farm on the 3rd May. His Honor reserved the non-suit point. Robt. J. Kells, dairyman, Newtown, also gave evidence. His Honor, in summing im. said it was not sufficient for the establishment of the plaintiff’s case to show that the plaintiff was in possession of the land by a. mere right of possession. It must be shown that there was actual possession at the time of the alleged eviction. If they could not come to the conclusion that.>Hansen, -as agent for the plaintiff, was -in actual possession before Mr Greville> (one of the defendants) took possession, toon the present action must fail. If Hansen was actually in possession, then the jury must consider whether there had been such a. breach of covenant by the nlaintiff as would justify Greville entering intp .possession.. They must also he satisfied that the defendants, knowing the existence of a. sub-lease from Kells to the plaintiff, did take r.ho rent from Kells; if the defendants did not know of such sub-lease when they took the, rent, then the verdict must he for the defendants. ■■

The jury retired at 5.55 n.m., and after three-quarters of .an hour’s deliberation gave their verdict as fol-. lows:—“Wo find; that the plaintiff (Tanner) was not in possession on • the 3rd March.” His Honor: That is a verdict for the defendants. Is that not so, Mr Chapman ?

Mr Chapman': I am afraid that is so your Honor.

On Mr Skerrctt’s application, costs according to scale were allowed to the defendants.

Tho Court then adjourned