SUPREME COURT SITTINGS.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXXVI, Issue 13331, 21 March 1911, Page 7

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS.

MONDAY, MARCH 20. (Before Mr. Justice Edwards.) - MITCHELL v BUCHANAN. This is an action by George Mitchell against his tenant, John Buchanan, to recover possession, and to recover damages for breach of contract. The land concerned is about 295 acres, at Westmere. Mr W. J. Treadwell appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. P. Brown for the defendant. In opening, Mr Treadwell said that Mr Mitchell had farmed the land in question' for 10 years, and had left It practically fres from noxious’ weeds. In 1901 Mr Mitchell sub-divided his farm into four parts, and his Honor would he asked to compare the part now tenanted hy Mr Buchanan with the other three parts. The part held by Mr Roberts was in the same condition as when he took it, and it would that Buchanan should have done likewise. From 1901 to 1904. Downes bad tbe tenancy of the land which was the subject of the action. He then assigned to Power, who transferred to Buchanan. The plaintiff contended that during, the tenancies of Power and Buchanan, the property had been neglected. Noxious weeds had increased considerably. In 1906 Mitchell complained about the noxious weeds to Buchanan, and said that the latter must be attended to. Buchanan said Power was

partly responsible, but added that he supposed “the last man had to bear the monkey,” and agreed to seeing to the removing of the weeds. He had not kept his agreement. On Ist June, 1909, Buchanan applied for leave to sublet. Mitchell said lie was dissatisfied with the management, especially as to the noxious weeds, and some painting, but on being promised that these would be attended to, gave his consent. The promise was broken again. In June, 1909, Buchanan determined the tenancy of his sub-tenants, and resumed possession. At this time the place was rapidly becoming covered with weeds, ‘-wasted, and impoverished. In July, 1909, Mitchell consulted his solicitor, who notiftcdfßuchanan, requiring him to remedy certain breaches. Mr Bueh an am did make an attempt to remedy the state of affairs somewhat, and asked Mr Mitchell to approve some seed for sowing in tbe ground that was broken up, which Mr Mitchell did. This seed had been sown in wet ground, and had consequently been unproductive. The gorse received some attention; but tbe briar none. Plaintiff again had a notice to repair, and remedy breaches of the covenants in the lease sent to Buchanan hy Mr Gordon. This was in October. Very little was done, and the writ was issued four months later. The plaintiff complained because he was being trifled with. He had asked on four occasions that matters be remedied, and r.ractically nothing had been done. On the 25th of February no briars were cut. Since that date, after the lease had been determined by the issue of the writ, the heads of the briars bad been cut, and this had the effect of making matters very much worse. No attempt had been made to perform the covenant, and this was an illustration of the manner in which plaintiff

was being trifled with. The Court then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. to-day to citable his Honor to view the property. When this case was called this momms, Mr W. J. Treadwell, solicitor for plaintiff, and Mr C. P. Brown, solicitor lor defendant, handed in a consent- to •udgmeut as follows: —Judgment to be entered for plaintiff for immediate possession, for mean profits at the rate reserved in the lease from ist December, 1910, Co date, and defendant to pay rates, .£75. to. cover costs and witnesses’ expenses. Judgment was entered accordingly. MERSON v. LEWIS. This case has been settled out of Court. HAROLD v. TAYLOR. This case has been struck out. IN DIVORCE. CAIRNEY v. CAIRNEY. This was a petition by Lillian Cairney for a divorce from Charles M. Cairney on the ground of adultery. Mr C. P. Brown appeared for petitioner, and there was no appearance of respondent. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Costs on the highest scale were allowed.

HALLIGAN HALLIGAN. Decree nisi previously granted in this case was made absolute, petitioner to have the custody of the children of the marriage. Mr C, E. Mackay appeared for petitioner. - ON APPEAL. HAYES v. BOURKE. Tliis was.an appeal on fact and law by John Hayes, of Auckland, against the decision of Mr W. Kerr, S.M., a game playedAvith a marked glass-topped cabinet and rings was a game of chance. Mr W. J. Treadwell appeared for appellant, and Mr C. C; Hutton for respondent. , Evidence was given as in the lowc:Court, with the addition that Sergt. Bourke and' Constables Wilson and Connor gave evidence that they had practised the alleged game, and had not been able to become skilful at it, and that -they considered success at it a matter of chance. The case was proceeding ,as we went to press.