A DEAL IN LAND.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume IV, Issue 1053, 27 June 1917, Page 8

A DEAL IN LAND.

SUPREME COURT CASE. I A QUESTION OF EVICTION. In Jho Suprei.io Court yesterday ho- ; fore his Honour Mr Justice Denniston, I was continued the hearing of a case in i which .Martin Moir, iriiier. of ChristMr Aljiors appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Sargent (instructed by .Mr C. S. Thomas) for the defendant. Mr Alpors said that after paving his rent for three (juaiier-\ defendant told tiie plaintiff that he desired io he freed from the lease. Plaintiff hatt offered to release deiendant for a sun; of £2OO, which lie subsequently offered to reduce to CI,In. Defendant'offered £sn, and negotiations feU through, and in the last quarter defendant abandoned possession, ; surrendering ti." key in February. When : plaintiff re-entered po-sc-ssioii "he ha<l found "4 acres covered in "fat hen" and weed, and a contract for £IOO had ' been h-i for ploughing and planting. j Frank lan Cowlishaw gave evidence | as to the drawing up of the lease. i Martin Moir, plaintiff, gave evidence •in accordance with the statement of j claim. When defendant took possession of the farm there were ".t acres in rape ■and oats, worth about £lt)0. In February last defendant said that he had 1 lost his money, and wanted to be released. Witness subsequently offered to "let him out"' for a couple of hunI dred pounds. Defendant won!.! only ■ give £.30. He had asked defendant to ! plough the 34 acres, the cost to come out of the final settlenent. The land j was in a shocking condition, and it was necessary to get the land ploughed beI fore it could be let to another tenant. i Evidence was also given by F. Arps, 1 regarding the contract for ploughing by 11. Eddbrook, relative to the state of ! the farm, and by W. (smith and Joseph ; Yates, with regard to the price charged j for laying down in grass. Mr Sargent, in stating the case for | the defendant, contended that there I was illegal entry on the part of plain- ! tiff, which was tantamount to eviction, i and further that in the case of su-'h illegal re-entry or eviction, rent could i only be claimed up to the time of evicj tion. Decision was reserved.