BANK OF NEW ZEALAND ESTATES COMPANY {LIMITED) V. GEORGE EDGECUMBE.

Waikato Argus, Volume I, Issue 31, 19 September 1896, Page 2

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND ESTATES COMPANY {LIMITED) V. GEORGE EDGECUMBE.

JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. Tins case was set down for hearing in tlie Supreme Court, Auckland oa Thursday morning. Mr Hanna, instructed by Messrs Ruddle, Rulton and Co., appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Cotter, instructed by Mr Swarbrick for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed under a lease ot the Wa'kato Times building and plant from themselves to the defendant—(l) £l4 10s for breach of covenant to paint. (2) £54 His 6d for certain type alleged to be deficient. (3) Certain lists of subscribers and advertisers, or, in default of such lists being delivered up, £IOO. (4) £SOO special damages for the detention of such lists and damage to the goodwill and business of the Waikato Times. (5) An injunction to restrain the defendant from using the said lists for the business of The Waikato Aim us. The defendant admittc I the first, and part of the second, items of the claim, and paid the sum of £2!) 7s 4d into Court in respect thereof, but denied all liability in respect of the remainder of the claim. Upon the case being called, Mr Cotter, on behalf of the defendant, stated that the following arrangement had been come to between the parties :—(1) That judgment should be given for the defendant ; (2) that the plaintiffs should be allowed to take out the amount paid into Court (£2!) 7s 4*l) ; and (3) that neither pirty should claim costs. Mr Hanna, on behalf of the plaintiffs, assented, and said that owing to his having had to communicate wi ll Wellington he had only received definite instructions that morning; Hi? Honor gave judgment accordingly, and d smissed the jaiy from further attendance.

With rcfeieii'e to the above case, we may cxpla'n that owing to Mr Edgeeumbc having to give up the plant almost at a moment's notice, there was no time to replace certain deficiencies in the stock of type. The building also required painting under the terms (f the lease. At the time of giving up possession Mr Edgfcumbc offered to pay for tiles'! deficiencies, and when a formal claim was made at once paid the amount into Court. This payment into Court practically criminated these items from the action, and the judgment is, both in substance ami in form, a judgment for the defendant.