LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1605, 23 November 1912, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

? SUPREME COURT. COVENANTS IN SUB-LEASES, COMPLICATIONS ON REVERSION; An originating summons for the purpose of determining the position of two defendants was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Cooper, the statement of facts having been agreed upon. The parties wero Emily B. Ostler, widow, of Levin, plaintiff, and the Levin Borough Council, defendant, Mr. A. R. Atkinson appeared for the plaintiff, while Mr. A. Pair appeared for the defendant borough council. It was submitted that in 1890 the Horowhenua County Council leased a piece of la'nd to Mrs. Ostler. It was tho ordinary form of lease, and according to that any buildings placed upon the land would become the property of the county, whose reversionary interest subsequently passed to tho Levin Borough Council. In 1894 Mrs. Ostler sub-leajed the land to various persons, whose interests were now vested in Mrs. Weitzel, and there was a covenant in this sub-lease which guvs Mrs. Weitzel tho right to remove buildings. Later, the Levin Borough Council acquired Mrs. Ostler' 6 interest, subject to the sub-leases. Recently the lease, which \vas for 21 years, expired, and the question arose as to'" the right to remove the buildings. Mrs. Weitzel pioceeded against Mrs. Ostler in the Lower Court, claiming damages for breach of covenant, and the Levin Borough Council was made a third party. The magistrate gave judgment in favour of Mrs. AVeitzel, as against Mrs. Ostler, but did uct determine the position of the Borough Council. The present originating summons was issued for the purpose of determining whether the covenant in tho underlease, relating to removal of buildiugs, was binding (as between the parties) on the Levin Borough Council. During the course of . argument, Mr. Fair raised the point that the covenant had not passed to Mrs. Weitzel with the transfer of the lease. His Honour pointed out that ihis argument would go as far as to say- that Mis. Weitzel was not entitled to judgment against either Mrs. Ostler or tho Levin Borough Council. Mr. Pair admitted that this was so. _ His Honour then expressed tho opinion that an injustice might be done if this point were argued without Mrs. Weitzel being represented. If he decided that. Mr. Pair's argument was untenable, then no injustice would bd done, but if he decided'the other way then Mrs. Weitzel, being an interested party, would have to be represented. Mr. Atkinson submitted that it was inequitable that Mr. Pair should be allowed to raise such a point at this stage. The Levin Borough. Council had been joined as a defendant in the Lower Court for the express purpose of raising any defence that might defeat the plaintiff, and this point had not there been raised. After considerable discussion on the Eoint, it was explained that Mrs. Weitzel ad already obtained the benefit of the judgment in the Magistrate's Court, and therefore the only material point remaining was as to whether the Borough Council should indemnify Mrs. Ostler. After hearing argument, his Honour reserved decision. 1 OIL-BORING RIGHTS. KOTUKU SYNDICATE GRANTED REVIVAL. Reserved judgment was delivered by the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme-Court yesterday, in an originating summons which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining an interpretation of a. deed of grant which gave the ICotuku Oilfields Syndicate, Ltd., certain petroleum boring rights. The plaintiffs were Prank Duncan Herrick and Edward Jasper Herrick, sheepfarmers, < '6f, Tautane',' Hawke's Bay; Arthur' Desmond Herrick, sheepfarmer, of Oparae; and Emily Martha Herrick, widow, of 1-1 Lindfiela Gardens, Hampstead, London. The defendants were the Kotuku Oilfields 'Syndicate, Ltd., carrying on business in New Zealand and elsewhere as oil-borers. . Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. H. P. O'Leary, appeared for the plaintiffs,' while Mr. M. Hannan, of Greymouth, with him Mr. H. G. Lloyd, of Dannevirke, appeared for the company. Prom the facts submitted in the summons, it appeared that by deed of grant dated July 19, 1911, the Herricks granted the Kotuku Syndicate certain petroleum boring rights. There was a provision for the termination of the grant if boring operations were not commenced within twelve months, and,also a provision giving tho syndicate the right of revival upon certain conditions, which included the payment of .£IOO per month' in advance from August 1, 1912, until it should have delivered upon some part of the property the whole of its plant, and started boring operations. In an affidavit by F. D. Herrick, it was stated that the syndicate, having failed to comply with the conditions of the grant, notice of termination was given on August 2, 1912. The main questions for his Honour to decide were whether the syndicate was really entitled to a revival of its rights, and if it were so entitled, what were the terms on which they should be revived? His Honour held that tho defendant company was entitled to have 'its rights revived, and that it was liable to pay to the Herricks the sum of i£loo per month until oil-boring operations were commenced. Costs were allowed the defendant company. LAND SALE DISPUTE. CLAIM POR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. A nonsuit point that had been raised in the case of Meikle -v. Gibbons was argued yesterday afternoon in the Supreme Court before tho Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout). The action, which took the form of a claim - for specific performance of an agreement to purchase land) commenced on Thursday, Mr. A. W. Blair appearing for Meikle, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with Mr. D. M. Pindlay, appearing for Gibbons. After hearing lengthy argument on the nonsuit point, his Honour intimated that he would require time to consider the matter. Sir John Findlay then called two witnesses for the defence, after which his Honour reserved decision'. MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.) BREACHES OF THE BY-LAWS. Meyer and Illingworth were ordered to pay 7s. costs for having failed to place a light on a ccaft'old. For having permitted a horse to wander at large, Frank Stavely was fined 10s., with costs 7s. James Phillips was convicted on a charge that he had mutilated a newspaper in the Central PuMic Library, and discharged. Fines of 10s.. twith costs 75., wore imposed '.upon Alfred John Mullins, William Honry Amos, Owen Daly, and Daniel M'Laughlin for having watered their gardens without having hrst installed watermetres. Richard Ockenden was fined £1, with costs 75., for having failed to keep a wages and overtime book. Edward Homer Tan9one was fined 10s., with costs 75., for having failed to closo his business, premises at the proper time on a certain half-holiday. INSOBRIETY. For insobriety, William Olliver was remanded for a week's medical treatment, Richard Robertson was fined 10s., and Richard Mitchell, a hluejacket, was handed to tho naval authorities. Rose Fraser, who was released from prison only this week, was fined iEI, in default seven days' imprisonment, for insobrioty, and was sentenced to ono month's imprisonment for having used objectionable language in a public place.