PLAINTIFF NONSUITED

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19300, 29 September 1932, Page 5

PLAINTIFF NONSUITED

WRONGFUL DISPOSSESSION ALLEGED CASE OUTSIDE COURT’S JURISDICTION. Holding that the case was beyond his jurisdiction. Mr C. R. Orr-Walker, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, non-su ted Gray Russell Hunter, motor ’bus proprietor, of Oamaru, in a claim against Percy Trethewey Davey, hotelkeeper, of Timaru, for £SO, damages for wrongful dispossession of premises held by him from defendant on lease. The orginal claim was for £l5O, but, after legal argument on various points, the amount was amended to £SO. Counsel for plaintiff stated that Hunter was claiming £SO on his own behalf, and £IOO for Collings Parlour Cars Ltd. (in liquidation), for which he was the liquidator. Counsel for defendant objected. Any action brought by Hunter would have to be in the name of the Company itself.

Lengthy legal argument followed. The Magistrate said that he understood that the root of the action was that plaintiff held that Collings Parlour Cars Ltd was the tenant, whereas defendant held that Collings persona • - ly was the tenant. Plaintiff stated that Mrs Collings, as secretary of the Company, collected a third of the rent from Hunter, who also occupied the premises, and paid the whole rent to Davey. The case raised the question of title, which was outside his jurisdiction. In his opinion, it was not a proper case to split up the claim as had been done. So complicated was the whole matter, that he considered it was not a case where the plaintiffs should be joined, and he declined the application in that respect.

Counsel for plaintiff agreed to con-, tinue with Hunter’s portion of the claim for £SO, and to issue a new summons in connection with the claim of Collings Parlour Cars Ltd.

Before he could formally refuse jurisdiction, the Magistrate said lie would need evidence in regard to tenancy.

Gray Russell Hunter, motor bus proprietor, of Oamaru, said that his service joined up with Collings Parlour Cars Ltd. In September last year witness and Mr Collings waited on a Mr Doyle in regard to the premises. Doyle agreed to assign the lease. Defendant had discussed the assignment with witness, and had agreed that ti e lease should be assigned to both Ceilings Parlour Cars Ltd. and witness. Defendant had been told that witness intended to pay a third of the rent. When he saw that Collings Parlour Cars could not avoid going into liquidation, in March last, he had spoken to defendant, who had expressed pleasure that something definite was going to be done in regard to the premises. This was before defendant went on a trip to Australia. Defendant said ha was prepared to give witness a lease then, but had not mentioned the terms. Nothing further was done at the time, but witness interviewed Mrs Davey in regard to a lease. Both defendant and Mrs Davey had said to witness that it would be better if he had the lease to himself. As there was some doubt in regard to the continuity of the run to Christchurch from Timaru, he had told defendant that he would have to consider the lease of the premises. Witness asserted that Davey knew he was paying a third of the rent. On July 2nd, while he was in Wellington, he had been informed that Mrs Collings had leased a portion of the shop. She had paid a week’s rent in advance. At a meeting of shareholders of Collings Parlour Cars Led., which decided to go into liquidation, defendant was not present. On the day of the meeting he had met Mr Davev with four other men, and defendant said that he had entered into an arrangement with Mrs Collings, and he told plaintiff that he had been too long in making up his mind. After that, witness was not able to use tbe office for his business, defendant saving that Collings was in possession. Collings was selling tickets for opposition companies.

The Magistrate commented that i:e would say, on the evidence, tnau plaintiff did not hold a lease, but he waprecluded from deciding that point The question of title, which was essential, was a matter for the Supreme Court to deal with.

Plaintiff was non-suited, and cc-d; were allowed defendant.