SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 8010, 10 October 1892, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, lOrii Ootobbb, 1892. (Before His Honour Chief Justice Sir Jamos Frendergast.) CRIMINAL BUSINESS. XIO IE BEEFI AND OTHBBB V. PABAItBHA AKD OXUBBB. The evidence in this case was concluded and the argument djounrned to Wellington. BIHITBBINI AHD OTHERS V. J, OCIiINANB. Ji GOBSB C&8B. In this case Mr Barnicoat appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Fitzherbert for defendant. Iv opening his case Mr Barnicoat said he proposed to go only into facts and get through the evidence as quickly as possible, as probably many points of law would arise which would be argued later, The action was brought by Maori landlords against their tenant at the expiration of his term, of what is said to be a lease, for having permitted the property to become overgrown with furze during the tenancy. The natives hold the title deed of this bloc): (consisting of 600 sons and situated

at Upokongaro) and the lease arranged by tho natives wm made on the first of July, 1871, and was for a term of 21 years. The fact of the lease having been made, is, however, deniod by defendant ; but it could not be denied that he occupied the land under no other lease and that he paid rent to the native owners. Shortly after the commencement of the lease Mr Cullinane planted gorso fences around the land, and also other fences sub-dividing. Probably for the first fow years these fences were kept trimmed, hut after a time they were allowed to go their own way and at the present time there is considerable wild growth. The plaintiffs base thoir claim, firstly, on the implied covenant* that the land and fences would be kept and yeilded up in a good and tenantable state of repair. There was no expression in the covenant ai to repair of fences, hut there is an allusion to fences in the olause prohibiting the tenant from taking timbor or wood from the land " except for the repair of fences." Thore is a difficulty in the matter in that it does not appear that Mr Cullinane signed the lease or the counterpart, but in the alternative there is a claim in thu implied covenants arising from tha relationship of landlord to tenant to keep the property in a tenentabla manner. Then there is a claim for waste and the plaintiff's claim for injury amounts to this : In the first place it would be argued that to put theplace in order it would bo necessary to eradicate the farse by grubbing, a matter of very considerable expense, and besides this the natives say that if Mr Cullinane had kept to the implied covenants and the placo in a tenantable manner he would have banded the property with a good fence planted instead of what there is now— simply iv collection of furze, vrhioh must be eradicated. Therefore, after the eradication of this furze there will be no fence, and the plaitiifs claim, firstly, for eradication of the furze, and, eecondly, for the value of the fence which they say ought to be there.

Evidence was then called — Messrs Wm. McDonell, W. H. Gougher, C. H. Borlase, and Timoti— to prove the execution ot the lease.

W. McDonnell (recalled) said ho did not write the word "Timoti." Mr Gouger also said he did not write it. Unless Timoti himself wrote it, McDonnell didn't know who did.

Rimiterini, Ngaome to Poina, and Horatio Walker also gave evidence as to the measurements of the fences and the gotse spread therefrom. Thomas Davis said the place was in a very bad state with gorse. It would cost 7s a chain all round for the first grubbing. The average width would be about threequarters of a chain. At this stage tho Court adjourned at 1 o'clock till 2 p.m.

Alexander Tawso, of Km Iwi, had been over Mr Cullinane's place, examined the hedges, and found it something similar to his (Mr Tawse's) place when he first took it -namely a spread of gorae, averaging half a chain or a little under from the fences, lineal measure ; he thought 5s a chain (single Bide) would cover the cost of grubbing, taking good with bad. To eradicate the gorse wholly and put up a wire fonce wonld cost from 20s to 25s per chain. In reply to Mr Fitzberbert, witness said he considered the amount claimed, £500, was high, and more than he would have considered himself entitled to had he been the landlord.

A. Georgetti is giving evidence as we go to press,