A SON AND HIS PARENTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4301, 9 March 1901, Page 2

A SON AND HIS PARENTS.

ACTION ABOUT A LEASE,

la the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve, the hearing was continued of the action between Samuel Turkington, of Cross’s Creek, schoolmaster, and "William John Turkington, of Hinemoa, farmer, and Elizabeth Turkington, h:s wife, a claim and counterclaim with respect to the lease of a farm known as “Riversdale,’’ in the Puketoi Survey District.

Mr E. B. Williams appeared for Samuel Turkington, and Mr Skerrett for W. J. and B. Turkington. S. Turkington claimed (1) possession oT the land and premises and of certain cattle and sheep; (2) £2OO compensation for breaches of agreement .and covenant ; and (3) £35 arrears of rent and for use and occupation of the land and premises from the Ist January, 1901, to the day of recovering possession. _ W. J. and E. Turkington counter-claimed £5Ol damages for trespass and alleged false and malicious publication. The claim for libel was abandoned.

His Honor, in summing up, said that Mr and Mrs Turkington appeared to have been brought out from Ireland by S. Turkington, who was their son. They were placed originally in possession of the property in question, which apparently was then in an unimproved condition. They appeared, with the assistance of their son, to have built a small cottage upon the property, and to have laid the farm down in grass. The son appeared to have stocked the farm in the first instance, and to have added to and replaced the original stock by subsequent purchases, which, were in a mensurd, at any rate, purchased by the sale of the increase from the original stock. After some years the parties failed to agree, and litigation ensued. There was a case in the Magistrate’s Cofirt at Pahiatua, and afterwards ono in the District Court at Mnsterton. A lease of the property from the son to his parents for a term of fifteen years i%as the final outcome of the litigation. The lease was. dated the 20th November, 1900; its term commenced on the 22nd June of the same year. In considering whether there had been breaches of covenants, the jury would have* to take the 20th November as the starting point. Tho son made complaints some four or five months after the commencement of the term of the lease. On the Ist January, 1901, in somewhat peculiar circumstances, he claimed to re-enter, and the writ issued on the 23rd of that month. When the sou brought his parents before the Court, only about two months had elapsed from the date of tho lease. It seemed to his Honor that STurkington hacl-been too precipitate altogether in tho action which he had taken, leaving out of mind altogether the relationship which existed between the parties. Even between strangers, it would have been unreasonable to have brought the lessees into Court upon such short notice, and within such a short time after tho execution of the lease. As to the covenant to fence, even if it had been one to forthwith put the fences in a. proper state of repair, the lessees would have been entitled to a reasonable time in which to do so. 1 There was only slender evidence of injury to the sheep. The evidence that they were shorn too late wasi completely met by the evidence that? the shearing season in the district began later than usual. There was no evidence of breach of Hip covenant to insure. S. Turkington was entitled to judgment for £35 for rent. as the rout had to be paid when it was due. If damages were given for trespass they should he substantial, Mr Skerrett consented to judgment for £35 for rent against his clients, in, accordance with his Honor’s direction. The jury returned the) following answers to issues left to them :

Have W. J. and E. Turkington failed to maintain in a proper state of repair the fences erected upon the demised land ?. No.

Have TV. J. and E. Turkington failed to tend the flocks of sheep and' cattle upon the demised land belonging to. S. Turkington, or to furnish the latter with true statements showing the numbers and descriptions of the same, or to maintain the quality and quantity of the same, or to, at the proper season, shear and dip the sheep? No. What damages are W. J. and E. Turkington entitled to recover from S. Turkington ? £25. Judgment was entered for S. Turkington for £35 and costs, to be ascertained by the Registrar on the Magistrate's Court scale; judgment for W. J. and E. Turkington on the other causes of action in the claim, without costs, except for preparing for trial; judgment for W. J. and E Turkington on the counter claim for £25, with costs, on lower scale, no costs for preparing for trial and no allowance for second day. His Honor suggested that the parties should, if possible, show a'better regard for the relationship which existed between them. The father and mother might show a. little more willingness to meet the wishes of their son, and the latter might show a little more filial respect for his parents. Family disputes were liable to lead to something worse than litigation. He hoped the family would again be united. '