COURT OF APPEAL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 46, 9 October 1911, Page 2

COURT OF APPEAL.

SALE OF A LEASE

BY WHAT ACT IS IT GOVERNED ?

An originating summons, brought in the Supreme Court, New Plymouth, and removed by ,consent of the parties to the Court of Appeal, was heard yesterday afternoon. On the Bench were the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Dcnniston, Mr Justice Edwards, and Mr Justice Chapman. The parties to the action were Ar-

tur William Budge, farmer, of Strat-

ford, plaintiff, and Thomas Bayly, grocer, of Hamilton, Lewis Bayly, stockbuyer, of Wanganui, and Horace Bayly, farmer, of Kai Iwi (executors of the will of James Bayly, deceased), and Thomas Elliott, farmer, Wuitara, defendants. The Commissioner of Crown Lands, Auckland, and the At-torney-GeneraJ were also cited. Mr Martin Chapman, K.C., with

am Mr J. H. Quilliam, of New Ply-

niouth, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr H. I). Bell, K.C., with him Mr G. H. Fell, appeared for the defendants (the Baylys and Thomas Elliott). The Attorney-General and the Commis-

sioner of Crown Lands wore represented by the Solicitor-General (Mr <l. W. Salmond). , The question for the consideration of the Court was: Where a lease of a small grazing run was granted under the provisions of the Land Act, 1885, arc the lessees, on the expiry of the term of the lease, after the passing jf the Land Act, 1908, entitled only to a renewal thereof, on the terms fixed by the Land Act, 1885, and is the same subject to the conditions of renewal contained in section 209 of the last-mentioned Act, or is the same subject to the Land Act, 1908, and are the conditions of the said last-mentioned Act. applicable to such renewal P

It appeared from the plaintiff’s statement that, hy the deed of lease dated "Septet ml ter Ist. 1888, an area of land, comprising 8810 acres in the North Survey District, Auckland Province, was demised to James Bayly (now deceased) and Thomas Elliott for a term of 2.1 years. In accordance with the provisions of section 20') of the Land Act of 1885, Bayly and Elliott obtained a renewal of the lease in 1000. In the following year Bayly died, and his executors (Thomas Bayly, Lewis Bayly, and Horace Bayly) and Elliott sold the grazing run to the plaintiff (Arthur William Budge). Doubt then arose as to whether the renewal of the lease was effected under the Land Act., 1885, or under the Land Act, 1008, and whether the rights of renewal of the lessees were to he determined hy section 200, and the succeeding sections of the Act of 1885, and were defeasible, or whether they were to bo determined under Part V. of the Act of 1008, and were indefeasible, it was agreed, however, to com-

pi etc the sale of the land to get a judgment of the Court of Appeal on the question, and, if the purchaser (Budge) obtained, before December 31st next, a. declaratory judgment that the lease was not a lease witii the perpetual right of renewal, /then the vendors (the executors of James Bayly and Thomas Elliott) would allow a rebate of £oooo off the

purchase money. All costs of obtaining tiie judgment- would be paid by the purchaser (Budge)

up to £3OO,

Argument had not concluded yesterday evening when the Court adjourned. On resuming on the following day (Friday), further argument was heard, the Court reserving judgment.