LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2523, 31 July 1915, Page 12

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT WRIT OP MANDAMUS SOUGHT Yesterday morning, before His Honour the Cliief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) an application was mado on behalf of Thomas Franklin Boyd, of Upper Hutt, blacksmith, for a writ of mandamus to D. G. A. Cooper, Stipendiary Magistrate at Upper Hutt, to hear and determine a claim made in the Magistrate's Court. • Mr._ R. Kennedy appeared . for the plaintiff in support of tho application, and Mr. T. Neave, on behalf of C. M. Palnier, one of the defendants. Tho statement of claim set out that tlid plaintiff had brought action in the lower. Court at Upper Hutt against C. M. Palmer and W. I. Scaniau, of Upper Hutt, haii-dressers. They , had, so it was alleged, entered a hairdressing business at Upper Hutt under an agreement for live years, binding them at all times of tlie year to keep the premises open as a barber's shop, and to use their best endeavours Ito. develop and improve the business. : It was alleged that breaches' of this agreement had been committed by the defendants, who had entirely suspended (business during certain periods on the premises, and were engaged in managing a rival hairdressing and tobacconist's shop and billiard saloon. . Tho trade and connection of tho said business had been greatly diminished, and the goodwill destroyed, and £78 damages was accordingly claimed for breach of agreement. rho document under which the defendants entered into possession was called an agreement. The defendants, however, were stili in possession, under the agreement, and contended that they could not' be held bound in the Magistrate's Court on the agreement unless it were a deed of lease.

'A preliminary objection was taken to tho Magistrate hearing the \ case on the ground that, the document was not a deed or lease, but a mere agreement. Tho plaintiff, :howeveiy contended it was a deed, and whether a deed or not, the defendants, being still in possession, were bound to perform tho conditions upon which they had entered. Tlie Magistrate, who declined to say whether tho document was a- deed, a lease, .or an agreement to lease, refused to hear the case oil the ground that he had no jurisdiction. He awarded costs against the plaintiff Boyd. It was to compel the Magistrate to hear the case aJid to reverse the order as to costs that yesterday'-s proceedings wero taken. After hearing legal, argument, thq Chief Justice reserved liis decision.