THE COURTS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 4351, 13 June 1896, Page 4

THE COURTS.

IIAGISTEATB'S COURT, LAWRENCE. Monday, Bth June.

(Before B. S. Hawkins, Esq., S.M.) ASSAULT. M. Young was charged with having on the 6th June at Tuapeka Flat assaulted John Thos. O'Donnell by a blow from a stone. Mr Dalziell appeared for plaintiff and Mr Crooke for defendant. Dr Niooll gave evidenoe as to the nature of the injury, and a number of other witnesses were also heard. His Worship said he was quite satisfied the assault did take place, and he believed the boy was struck with a stone by defendant. There was evidently a great deal of animus between the parties, but no evidence of any provocation on the part of the boy. Defendant was fined £2 2s (half to go to complainant) ; medical attendance, £1 Is ; Court costs, 9s; witnesses' expenses, 10s 6d.

CIVIL CASES. E. Dimant v. P. Fergusson. — Claim of £1 Is 6d, goods sold and delivered. Mr Dalziell for plaintiff. — Judgment by default for amount claimed, with costs (6s). John Fitzgerald v.Ann and Cornelius Fitzgerald. — Claim of £70, value of three horses. Mr D. Finlayson for plaintiff ; Mr Dalziell for defendants. — After several witnesses had been examined, his Worship gave judgment for defendants.

a disputed account. James Robebtson v. John Thompson. — Claim of £5, balance of account as follows : — Price of 60 sheep, sold by defendant on account of plaintiff, £8 19s Bd, less commission (ss) and amount paid on account £3 14s Bd. Mr Dalziell for plaintiff ; Mr Crooke for defendant. The defendant had filed as a setoff a claim of £5 for use of certain sections and dwelling situated at Tuapeka East. John Robertson deposed he was a farmservant at Greenhill, Waitahuna West. He had gone to Mr Thompson and had asked him about a certain section, and Mr Thompson referred him to Mr M'Nab, who agreed to let him have fifty acres of land at £20 ayear. Witness afterwards met Mr Thompson, and he said it was all right. He was to have the house and section from the 18th September, 1895, for twelve months. About six weeks after he took the farm he returned the key of the house, as he did not see his way to keep the section. Mr Walker (defendant's clerk) told witness Mr Thompson wanted £10 for his term of occupation of the place, but afterwards Mr Thompson told him he must get £5 before the end of the year. This amount witness paid him and got a receipt for it. (Receipt produced.) He asked j Mr Thompson was he clear of the place, and j Mr Thompson said " yes," and also told him I he might have the bit of crop on it. Afterwards Mr James Robertson agreed to give 1 witness £2 10s for the crop and the use of the grass for the balance of the first six months, witness being under the impression that he had paid a quarter's rent for the place. Mr James Robertson afterwards let the house and made witness some allowance for it. It was about the middle of January this arrangement was made with Mr James Robertson. By Mr Crooke: Could not remember the .date when he took the section from Mr M'Nab. Had received the key from Mr Thompson personally at Clayton's sale. It was about six weeks afterwards that he returned the key. Was not living on the place from the time he returned the key till he paid the £5 to Mr Thompson. It was about the latter end of October when the crop was put in. It was put in by his father, who charged him 18s 6d for patting ia the two acres and a-half. He had paid Mr Thompson ia notes. Had cashed a cheque at Mrs Airey's, and it was a week afterwards when he paid Mr Thompson. He had not been told by Mr James Robertson to be careful and not to pay Mr Thompson by his (Mr Jas. Robertson's) cheque. He had been told by Mr Walker that Mr Thompson expected £10 rent for the land. On April 23rd he received the cheque for £2 10s from Mr Jas. Robertson, although the agreement as to it had been made in January. Had not asked Mr Thompson if he would accept Mr Jas. Robertson as a tenant instead of himself. By Mr. Dalziell : It was on the 23rd December he received a' cheque from Mr Jas. Robertson for £6. : Had got no £5 cheque in 1895 'lafeHhan -21st October. James Robertson,' farmer, deposed he sold some Stock -through Mr Thompson. He had heard that Johji'Jßbbertson was occupying a farm and wanted to dispose of it. Witness •to^LJjphtf Robertson if he could not dispose of 4h& pittce to anyone else before a certain date he would take it at £2 10s for the balance of six months,! or which term he had been told by John Robertson he had obtained the place from Mr Thompson. Had never had any dealing with Mr Thompson in the matter. By Mr Crooke: Had seen Mr Thompson Biter he liad agreed with John Roberkson. Had not seen him before, and Mr Thompson did not tell him he consented to the arrangement. He saw Mr Thompson after the arrangement had been made, because he heard that Wm. Lawrence was after the place, and he wished to let Lawrence have it, but Mr Thompson said he could do nothing in' the matter, as John Robertson had taken the place for six months. Mr Dalziell asked for a non-suit, on the ground that the rent claimed, if due at all, was due to defendant's principal, and that defendant could not set it off against plaintiff's claim. After argument, his Worship decided to go on with the case. For the defence, Mr Crooke said the land was let originally to the late Mr H. C, Clayton, but on his death Mr Thompson agreed to allow another tenant to take up the remainder of the lease if a good one could be found. John Robertson's name was submitted, and Mr Thompson agreed to have the place let to him. After a week, John Robertson came back and asked Mr Thompson to accept James Robertson as a tenant, and he agreed, io Ho so, and he had looked on James Robertson as .the tenant all the time subsequently. As plaintiff (Jas. Robertson) has had the use and occupation of the land since he was .substituted for John • Robertson, the. defendant claimed to set-off the' sum' of £5 for the quarter's rent, as against his indebtedness to James Robertson, and defendant had accounted to Miller, the owner of the land, whose agent he was, for the £5 he claimed to set-off, and under the circumstances he was entitled to the set-off. Counsel, also asked the Magistrate if he' ruled against him. on, the law points to give judgment for defendant under section 97 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, on the ground .that plaintiff, having occupied the land with permission, of : defendant, and having received rent for the house on it, it was in accordance, with equity- and good conscience 'that defendant. -should be permitted to retain the, ££ claimed by plaintiff. "" '"

John Thompson, auctioneer,, deposed the land' in .q'uesUdn'waa 'o^nea by one of his client^Mf ft 1 fliUejp, .It was let to the late Mi H. : C. Cla'ylon, ,ffind at Ms death he agreed with Mr 'M'Nab (Mrs. Clayton's brother) to accept John Robertson as tenant. Within three weeks after he saw John Robertson, he came back and witness agreed to a transfer from him to James Robertson. Within a few weeks William Lawrence came after the place, and witness referred him to James Robertson, saying he had nothing to do with the place. At Lawrence's request he saw plaintiff, who agreed to let Lawrence have the' land, but afterwards witness rode over and saw plaintiff about shearing time, and plaintiff then said he could not let him have the place. Some time ago Mr T. Dodds came to witness after the house, and witness sent him to James Robertson, who let him the place at 3s a week. Had never recognised John Robertson as a tenant. By Mr Dalziell : Had always credited James Robertson in his books, as the entries would show (cash-book produced.) When-h^'let'the place to -John Robertson, he lopped Jo him ftloae fo raft John RobertsQii took oyei fte

We Mr Clayton's responsibility as to the farm Within three weeks after,had ttpreed to accept James Robertson instead of John Robertson, and it might have been a week later James Robertson, in witness's own office, gave an implied consent to the arrangement, though nothing was said as to an extension of time or rent. James Robertson had mentioned subsequently, since the dispute as to the rent, that he had taken the place for the balance of a term of six months. James Robertson had agreed to the transfer of the place to Wm. Lawrence, but afterwards would not go on with it. Lawrence wanted the place for & long term, but witness had no power to let it to him. He never asked John Robertson for the rent. The reason James Robertsou gave for not letting Lawrence have the land was that he wanted it himself. He told Lawrence that he might have the place at the end of James Robertson's term of occupation, but afterwards there was a higher tender for the place, and Lawrence did not get it. By the Court : The house was let by James Robertson in January to Dodds. By Mr Crooke: Dodds came to witness about the property. It was because he let the property by tender and wanted the highest rent available that he did not let Lawrence have the place. There was an oat crop on the place, which was taken off by James Robertson. The rental value of the land was £20 a-year. By the Court : The other tenders were two for £20 (one by Robert Robertson) and one for £15 by Lawrence. He decided against Robertson, because he wanted to buy the place, the rent being purchase money. David Walker, clerk for defendant, gave corroborative evidence.

Wm. Lawrence, brickmaker, deposed he had gone to Mr Thompson about the farm sometime in October or November. Mr Thompson had referred him to Jas Robertson. Saw Mr Robertson, and he said he only wanted the place for a week or two, and meantime he (witness) might put in any stock at a shilling » week per head the same price as he was paying himself. Afterwards Mr Thompson came to see witness, and told him that Robertson would let him have the place, but when he again saw Robertson he said he wanted the place himself. Had tendered for the land since, but did not get it. By Mr Dalziell: When he saw James Robertson, he said he had taken over John Robertson's part of the term of the property. James Robertson never said witness could have the place if he paid the same for it that he (James Robertson) had paid. Did not remember James Robertson saying that he would not stand in witness's way if he wanted the property. By Mr Crooke: He remembered James Robertson saying he had taken the place for the end of Jack's term, but he did not say how long that was.

Thomas Dodds, the present occupier, gave evidence as to the terms of his tenancy.

This concluded the evidence, and his Worship said he would reserve his decision till next sitting of the Court.