THE TE PUKE HOTEL.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVI, Issue 954, 18 June 1908, Page 21

THE TE PUKE HOTEL.

ACTION FOR POSSESSION.

At the Supreme Court last week, before Mr. Justice Edwards, Ernest Brothers Dufaur brought an action against Timothy Kenealy, Arthur Antony Smith, and Ernest James Ralph Smith for possession of the_Te Puke Hotel, and £5OO damages. Mr. F. E. Baume, K.C., and Dr. H. Dean Bamford (instructed by Mr. A. Hanna) appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs. J. R. Reed, R. McVeagh, and Phillips for the defendants.

--Mr. Baume - explained, that the... plaintiff and the defendant Kenealy were wine and spirit merchants, carrying on business separately in Auckland. The latter was the owner of the Te Puke Hotel, and in 1905 leased it for ten years to a man named Martin. A license was issued to Martini, and was renewed in June, 1907. On August 11 the premises were .burnt down, arid on the 13th, two days later, Martin obtained permission to carry on ousiness for the sale of liquor in temporary premises. About the end of August Martin entered into negotiations with Dufaur for the sale of the. lease, and it was ultimately agreed between them that subject to the. landlord’s giving consent, an assignment should be entered into, arid correspondence ensued. On September 10 Martin was convicted for being drunk in a public place, to wit, the -i’e Puke Hotel, and Mr. Phillips, acting for the defendant Kenealy, contended that this was a breach of the covenant, and gave notice terminating the lease. The plaintiff, in the meantime, had been in communication with the defendant, Arthur A. Smith, with a view to getting him to become the licensee of the.hotel. Mr. Hanna, o behalf of Martin, denied that any breach of the covenant had been committed, and on September 25 the defendant, A. A. Smith, entered into possession under the plaintiff, under an agreement for a weekly tenancy. Siriith obtained a temporary transfer and carried on the business. In .November the plaintiff was approached by; the defendant Kenealy with .reference, to the. lease, arid a great deal of correspondence, etc;, ensued, as the result of which Kenealy refused to, recognise Dufaur,, arid ’installed the? defendant, E; J; R. Smith, the '■

other' defendant’s sqn,. as and'riomiriee. The plaintiff then ,de marided possession, but this was refused, and after further correspondence, etc., the present proceedings were instituted.

. Defendants, in a counter-claim, asked for a decree that the plaintiff had no interest iri the lease. One witness was called, after which the further hearing of the case was adjourned.