DUNEDIN DISTRICT COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4164, 23 June 1875, Page 3

DUNEDIN DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, June 22nd. (Before His Honour Judge Bathgate.) KEXSEDV V. CHAFMAX. His .Honour delivered judgment in this case as follows :—ln this case, which is an action ti recover the value of certain improvements made by the plaintiff, as temnt of land belonging to the defendant, the objection has bten taken that in terms of the Statute of Frauds, sections Ist, 2nd, and -4th, no action can lie. This is a special defence of which the defendant was bound to Lave given notice, and it is therefore not admissable. (District Courts Act, 18f>S, section 50, rule Xo. 106.) Although such a defence had been admissable, I am of opinion it could not, in the circumstances of this case, hxve been sustained. It has been proved that the plaintiff, as tenant, occupied a farm of SO acres, near Dunedin, belonging to the d< fondant, for a term of seven years, "which expired on 4th November, 1574, at a yearly rent of £50 ; that the plaintiff built a iouse, erected fences, and effected other improvements thereon, during his tenancy ; that he was to be paid for such improvements, according to valuation, at the expiry •of the tenancy ; that the plaintiff and defendant arranged for the valuation to I>j made ; that the plaintiff appointed Andrew Hogg, and the defendant appointed Thomas Blajk, as their respective valaators ; that •on a day fixed, the valuators, accom--panied by the plaintiff and defendant's son, who is also his solicitoi", attended on the ground, and a valuation -was duly made by each of the said -valuators ; that the valuation so made was -fche value of the improvements at that time, •without taking into account the state of the fences at the date of the plaintiffs entry ; that the valuators each gave in a separate -valuation ; and that the solicitors for the parties met and agreed to halve the difference between them, and the defendant's solicitor objected to certain items. I find that, under the first item of the plaint, there is due to the plaintiff the sum of £33 3s ; under the second item there is nothing due ; under the third item, there is due to the plaintiff the sum of £6 ; under the fourth item, there is due to the plaintiff £21 18s 9d ; under the fifth item there is nothing due ; under the sixth item, there is due to the plaintiff £14 14a ; under the seventh item, there is due ■fche plaintiff £1 I3s ; under the eighth item, there is due the plaintiff £5 . 0s ; under the ninth item, there is due the plaintiff £29 15s. Judgment will be for the plaintiff for £112 13s 9d, with costs, without prejudice to any claim the defendant may have against him for arrears of rent. Mr Chapman: Your Honour, we intend to appeal against this decision.

His Honour: Very good. The case of Martin v. Smith is quite against the defendant in this case. I think it was a case of last year. It was cited at the hearing.