A LAND DEAL

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVII, Issue 10838, 2 March 1921, Page 3

A LAND DEAL

TAITA DAIRY FARM HUTT LESSEE AND RUSSIAN LANDLADY. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. Litigation concerning a dairy farm at Taita, in the Hutt Valley, occupied the Supreme Court yesterday. Plaintiff in the case was Annie Deckston, wife of Max Deckston, Wellington ; and the defendant was Ernest John August, farmer, Lower Hutt. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert-Stout) was on the Bench, counsel were Messrs M. Myers for plaintiff ami E. P. Bunny for defendant. STATEMENT OF CLAIM. The statement of claim set out that by agreement between the parties on May Ist, 1018, plaintiff undertook to let and the defendant to take certain land and premises held by- plaintiff under native lease for a term of ten vears from the date of the agreement, the land is situated in the Hutt district, and defendant duly took possession of it. Defendant undertook to keep the place in good repair and condition. Defendant had committed breaches of the covenants by failure to repair broken windows, steps, tank, windmill, pump, fences, stable walls, dairy, etc. He had wrongfully rtmoved a fence without applying for written consent, sublet uhe smaller dwelling* house on the property, and had failed to pay £23 12s 5d county rates and £2 Is 3d river board rates. By reason of these things plaintiff had become entitled to re-enter into possession, expel defendant, and recover damages for breach of covenant. Therefore Plaintiff claimed possession of the land, £250 damages for breach of covenant, and money as rent for the use of the land at the rate of £l6O a year from May Ist, 1920. DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM.

The statement of defence was a denial that defendant had committed' the alleged breaches or any breach of the covenant- to repair. On the contrary, he repaired the premises and kept them in repair in accordance with the covenant. He denied having neglected to repair windows, steps, tank, and so on. In a counter-claim,’ defendant said it was a condition precedent that the plaintiff should put in complete order and condition, and render sheep and cattle-proof, all the boundary fences. This condition had not been performed, nor had the gorse been grubbed, or the house painted as agreed. Plaintiff had on numerous occasions so harassed the defendant as to render his position as lessee intolerable, and when the defendant after the expenditure of considerable time and money in improvomehts, was able to assign bis interest to various solvent and respectable persons at considerable profit to himself, plaintiff wrongfully persuaded them to break off negotiations, and defendant had been deprived of the profit. Defendant claimed an order relieving him from forfeiture of the lease and £250 damages., because of plaintiff’s failure to make the fences sheep-proof, grub the gorse, and paint the house. “NOTHING BUT TROUBLE.” Addressing the court, Mr Myors said that plaintiff, by this action, sought to recover from defendant a piece of land which was situated near the Taita Hotel. The land was taken under an agreement.of lease for ten years. From the time that defendant took the lease the plaintiff had had nothing but trouble with him. Plaintiff’s case was that defendant had been nothing but a nuisance to her. There were two houses on the property, and because of the condition defendant allowed them to get into plaintiff was unable to insure them. If they had been burned down, defendant would have been a heavy loser. In August, 1920, an action between these parties came before Mr Justice Edwards, and His Honour found that defendant had committed a breach "of his covenant not to assign or part with possession of the premises without the consent of plaintiff, but His Honour granted defendant relief from the forfeiture. Defendant should have taken that lesson to heart. However, he did not, and the buildings were in disorder and the place was overrun with gorse. His Honour.- Has he not set up a defence that she agreed to put everything in order before he took over? Mr Myers i No. That only applies to certain fences. . . . Evidence will be called to show that the fences were put in order. DID THE LEASE CHANGE HANDS? Mr Myers said that defendant did not really farm the place at all. Ite put other people in possession—at times of the whole and -at times of part of t-he property—and drew rent from them. His Honour: He also says she agreed to grub the gorse. Mr Myers: Your Honour will find she did that. ... It will be found that she performed amply lxer agreement in that respect. Mr Myers said that within a few months of being granted relief by Ml' J ustice Edwards defendant - again part ed with some of the property, to a man named Westerby. He also parted with some to a man named Kells. Defendant tried to get out of this position by saying that Westerby was on the premises tor tho purpose of effect ing repairs. That could not be true as a certain agreement could be produced. Mr Bunny said Westerby went in to do the repairs and afterwards plaintiff’s consent to his occupying the land was to have been applied for. Mr Myors: It is a very curious thing that that arrangement was not communicated to Mrs Deckston. And not only was Westerby there, but his wife and family also were there. Mr Myers called evidence in support of his case, and Mr Bunny then outlined the defence. ALLEGATIONS DENTED. Mr Bunny said the defence was that the place had been kept in good repair and that even if the court decided otherwise relief from forfeiture should be given. As to the allegation that the defendant had rented tho land to Westerby, the fact was that defendant had not received a penny in rent. Mr Myers: The agent got it! Mr Bunny said the repairs done by Westerby were all that or more tlian Mrs Deckston could expect. Referring to the previous action His Honour said. there was nothing in the ■judgment of Mr Justice Edwards to show that the fences had to be sheep proof. On the contrary, the judgment on that point was against defendant. Evidence was concluded, late in the afternoon, and the case was adjourned for the hearing of addresses by counsel.