DISPUTED ALTFRATIONS.

New Zealand Illustrated Sporting & Dramatic Review, Volume XVII, Issue 992, 11 March 1909, Page 21

DISPUTED ALTFRATIONS.

In the Welling.on Mag.strafe’s Court recently, his Worship (Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) r. ad the reserved judgment of Dr- A. .McArthur. S.M., in the case of Alexander Nicol (Mr. Toogood) v. Matthew Moynihan (Mr. McGra.h). The plaintiff is the owner of the Pahautanui Hotei, which he acquired from one George P. Payne, subject to a lease to one Martha Caldwell- The defendant is the licensee of the hotel. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of £75 12s 9dthe action being a dispute between the landlord and tenant as to which of the two i-hou.J pay for alterations and repairs, required by the Licensing Committee to be done to licensed premises on th report and recommendation. of the Health Department.. The landlord held that the tenant was responsible under the terms of the leasewhile the tenant contended that, as many of the alterations were entirely new things, the landlord was respons ble- As the tenant did not carry out the requisitions of the Licensing Committee, the landlord, to save the license from forfeiture, did so, and now sued the tenant for the amount he had expended in comply ng with the requisitions. The plaintiff called the Clerk of the Licensing Committee- the District Health Officer, and an inspector of the Health Department. He then closed his case, and the defendant's counsel asked lor a non-suit on the ground that the plaintiff claimed lo recover under covenant n a lease. The lease was orignally from one Bayne to a Mrs. Caldwell. The plaintiff purchased the freehold from Payne, this being proved by thei producton of a certificate of title in the plaint ff’s name. It was alleged by the plaintiff that Caldwell assigned the lease to the defendant and that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff under covenants in the lease between Payne and Caldwell. No proof was g ven of the assignment except the original lease produced, with a note on it signed by the District Land Registrar, stating that the transfer to the defendant was reg stored. Counse. for the defendant contended that there was no proof that the’ defendant was liable to perform the covenants in the original lease, and that either the original assignment to the defendant, if there was one. should have been produced, or a certified copy by the D strict Land Registrar, sealed with his seal, should have been produced.

Owing to the want of a certified copy the Court had no means of ascertaining whether the argument from Caldwell to the defendant was either signed or attested. Both the execu-

tion and the attestation of the assignment should have been proved. In the opinion of the Court, the plaintiff must produce either the assignment of the lease itself, or a certified copy thereof, signed or sealed by the District Land Registrar, to show whether the defendant was liable to perform the covenants in the original lease. Such not being produced, the plaintiff must be non-suited, with costs, £3 10s.