SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume L, Issue 12145, 5 September 1908, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

(Continued from page 5,) " again and was called into the room and „ was told to get particulars of the lease from the Public Trustee for Road. "Witness got the particulars and then + went and told Read tfiat the lease ex- i pired on the Ist July, 1909. There was r no further discussion. The back por- j tion of the place was let to aMr Coop- , er. Witness told Read this, and Read worked out the net rent, and stated same Avas high. Read said he thought they would prefer the other room them- < selves. Possession was taken on Ist ] April. Remember Muir seeing . Mill- i ward on 7th May. Defendant handed him the contract and cheque for £45. < Wirness got contract typed and gave ' a receipt to Muir. • { To Mr Hutchison: When referring to Read he meant Read Bros. Ltd. Remembered seeing the name up. George Ross., clerk, employed by Barnicoat and Treadwell, said he re- , mernbered plaintiff meeting him in the Avenue, and asking him if his firm had ■Mill ward's lease in the office as he . wanted to have a look at it. Witness said he could if he liked to pay the lieu-on it. Muir asked how much it was and witness told him £7 odd. Was treating tliis all the time as a joke, and both were laughing. When they parted witness, told him he w_as only joking and he could see the lease. Muir went away and said it was all right. To Mr Hutchison: He did not telJ Muir he could see it at the Public Trustee's.. .•■' : :■.... This closed the evidence for the defendant. -Mr Treadwell eaid he could not add much to what he had said when moving for a non-suit. Mr Hutchison, for plaintiff, said the argument for the defence was based on a. wrong conception of the relative: position of the parties. If plaintiff was the Company he could not sue individually, but he sued as a separate individual. The Company entered into the premises on a contract. between defendant and itself. Read never communicated what he knew about the term to. Muir himself. The plaintiff, after the Public Trustee had refused Read Bros. Ltd., made a separate arrangoment with Millward. The document was clear on;the point."that Muir was- dealing as an, individual with Mill ward. His Honour: The Company was in possession^ then painted out a word and left Read in possession. Who was Read and what was his possession? ■ Mr Hutchison: Read was W. A. Read : then. Muir happened to have been a shareholder. Muir bought separately. 'Read was in possession but Murr bought 'the lease. He did not b.iy Read too. '-: Ho hoped he didn't. ; Mr Hutchison, continuing, Muir's receipt was to James -,Tv Muir,. hot tli« Company. The representation was 2^ years or thereabouts. Counsel criticised the evidence on this point: He submitted that plaintiff, must recover, as he never had possession. The facts alleged in the statement of claim had been proved. Read had gob possession through a Company, not through Muir, and # Muir could not put Read out. Tho position was clear. " ~- ' :His. Honour said he would consider the points and reserve his decision. As to the rent he would suggest that Read shoukl pay it to a joint account of both partier! in the meantime. Mr Hutchison said Read could not pay it.