DISTRICT COURT.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1413, 11 May 1886, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

ASHBURTON—MONDAY.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward.) BANKRUPTCY.

Orders of discharge.—On tide application of Mr Caygill, orders of discharge were granted to John Hildreth, George Thompson, and Thomas Simpson.—Applications by Thomas Sapper and Blaney Tipping were adjourned until next sitting of the Court. ADMINISTRATION. Ke William Bland, deceased—On the application of Mr Caygill, letters of administration were granted to Emily Bland, widow of the deceased. CIVIL CASE. Ashburton Borough Council v. John Orr. Claim £lB. This was an action brought by the Ashburton Borough Council to recover from Mr John Ore £lB, the amount of a year’s rent of a borough reserve leased to defendant.—Mr Joynt, instructed by Mr Crisp, appeared for the Borough Council, and Mr Purnell appeared for the defendant.—His Honor pointed out that the Conrt had no jurisdiction in the case as it stood, as the amount sued for was less than £2O, and the District Courts Act provided that not less than £2O should be sued for in these Courts. After some consultation between counsel engaged, it was agreed to give jurisdiction to the Court by the solicitors engaged signing a written consent to the case being tried there. The case was then proceeded with It appeared that the defendant bad purchased at public auction the lease of two sections of one of the borough reserves. A lease was prepared and signed by the defendant in 1881. The rent agreed upon was regularly paid by the defendant until 1884, but during that year the defendant gave notice of his intention to pay no more rent. At the close of the plaintiffs case, Mr Purnell submitted there was no case for him to answer, inasmuch as the plaintiff sued lor the rent of a piece of land described as put of town sections 533 and 550, whereas the _ memorandum of lease put in evidence showed ' the land let to be part of a reserve, and no evidence of identification had been offered. His Honor sustained the objection, but ultimately allowed Mr Joynt to amend his claim, and recall the Town Clerk to identify the land.

Mr Purnell then moved for a nonsuit. He submitted that Mr John Orr bad never acccpted the lease in writing as required by the Statute of Frauds. He signed the memorandum of lease on December 12, 1381, bat inasmuch as the corporation did not execute the deed until December 13, the lease was not in existence on the day when it was alleged to have been accepted by Mr Orr. The fact that Mr Orr had paid rent was immaterial since he had never entered into possession of the land. Then, the lease was ultra vires, because by the Municipal Corporations Act it was provided that the rent must be an “ annual rack rent, without covenant for renewal,” whereas by the terms of the lease the rent was to increase every iseven -years.—Mr Joynt, on the first point, contended that defendant by paying rent had stopped himself from questioning bis acceptance of the lease ; and if he had not entered into actual occupation, be had permitted possession of the land. As to the second point, the words “ without covenant for renewal ” must be taken to refer to a renewal of the lease itself, and not of the rent. Numerous authorities were cited on both sides, and after considerable argument His Honor refused the motion for a nonsuit. Mr Parnell said he did not intend to call any evidence, and judgment was accordingly given for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs; The Court then rose.