Resident Magistrate's Court.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 4978, 20 May 1891, Page 4

Resident Magistrate's Court.

YESTERDAY. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., R.M.) cmt CASES. J. Sn. "Wait v. E. M'Glashan. —On resonating, Mr Harvey said if Mr Newton would agree, Mr M'Glashan would admit owing half the claim for rent, or up to the end of February, and would confess judgment for that amounting to LSI. and adjourn the rest until Mr Crawford was better. Mr Newton would not agree, and the cose went on. In opening the case, Mr Newton said that Dr Wait owned a Cum called Mount Pleasant, and was the lessor of a reserve of 40 acres. This land Mr Burbury, as Dr Wait's agent, let to defendant in Jone for the remainder of Laurie's lease of seven years from Ist May, 1800. Defendant entered into possession on the Ist of July, 1800. He stated the times when the rent was paid, and called Mr E. P. Burbury, who said that, in Jnne last, he agreed to let defendant the farm for the remainder of Laurie's term, which was from Ist May, 1800. The rent was to be 25s per acre for the 132 acres, and 22a per acre for the 40 acres, rent t> be paid quarterly. In October, defendant requested that the rent should l>e iccepted up to the first of Octol>er instead of the first of November. _ Witness agreed, but told defendant that in future the rent must be |K*id in accordance with the lease. Defendant paid again on the IQtb of February, and there was then one month's rent due. The claim was for rent from Ist January to Ist May. Witness had only received one letter from defendant about his endeavoring to get another tenant for the farm. Defendant left the farm without giving witness any information of his having done s>. To Mr Harvey : Witness said lie had had several conversations with defendant. He had one at the yards, when defendant said he wanted to get rid of the farm, and witness asked him to put his request in writing. Defendant did not write until he was requested to do so again from the office. He never understood that the tenancy was to cease from that date. For the defence, Mr Harvey ealled the defendant, who said that he entered into possession of the farm on the sth July, 1800. There was no lease, and there was no definite time agreed upon. On the 11th February be saw Mr Burbury at the Junction Sale Yards, and offered him a cheque for the rent up to that time v and Mr Burbury asked witness to hand the cheque to his clerk. Witness asked him what he was going to do with the farm, as he (witness) could not afford to pay any more rent. Mr Burbury replied that, if witness wanted tf> get ont of it, he could find a tenant. Witness said he wished to get out of it, and Mr Burbury asked him to put bis request in writing. After that date witness did not till or stock the land. Nothing was ever agreed upon regarding a lease. At the sale yards Mr Burbury said he had two tenants waiting, and witness expected them next day. To Mr Newton: Defendant said he agreed verbally to take the farm for seven years from the Ist of May. 1890. On the Ist of May, 1891, 3lr Burbury told him that unless he went out he would take steps to put him oat, and he left on the 4th of May. He did not remember seeing Mr Burbury between the two conversations spoken of. He had abandoned the farm and did not intend to return to it. The conversation on the Ist of May was near Mr Shalders' farm between 9 and 10 a.m. Wm. Lawson, cashier at N.Z.L. and M.A. Company's office, said he wrote in pencil the memorandum, and Mr Burbury was not present, but it was the result of an agreement made between Mrßurbarj, Mr Lawrie. and Mr M'Olsshan. Mr Newton ask-.I leave to call Mr Burbury to contradict what defendant said abouc the conversation on the North Road. Mr Harvey objected, and Mr Burbury was not called. Mr Harvey then said that the plaintiff could not recover, as the claim not being made by plaintiffs attorney he was out of the jurisdiction of the Court. He submitted that the tenancy was a tenancy of will, and was put an end to on February 11th by Mr Burbury telling defendant that he had other tenants, and that was borne out by the other conversation on the 4th May. Mr Newton replied that it was competent for anyone to sue in the Resident Magistrate"* Court, and under power of attorney could instruct a solicitor. The principal was bound by the result. His Worship reserved judgment.