SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3143, 28 July 1917, Page 13

SUPREME COURT

TENANT AND LANDLORD

A CLAIM FOR JcGOO DAMAGES

Ueioi'o llis Honour Mr. Just.ico Chapman, In the Supreme Court yesterday, argument ■T/09 heard ou poiuts of law regarding the rights of tenants and landlords in connection with tho ca-so i-u which Elizabeth fiewell, of. Mastcrton, claimed damages from Donald and Sons, Ltd., for . /wrongful ejectment from a dweljinghouse 'and premises in Mastorton, the property of the defendants. Mr. 11. 0. Bobinson, of Mastertou, appeared for tho plaintiff, and Sir John Findiay, IC.C., with him Mr. \\. 0. llollings, of Masterton, for the de-. fendants. Plaintiff alleged that she had been a. tenant .of:-the"premises..prior to Angust. 3, 1914. On February 22 sho was served with a notice to quit, and on April 18 was ejected in execution of a warrant issued by the Magistrate. Plaintiff claimed that defendants had no right to possession of the premises in view of tho lawful subsisting tenancy, and,that sho bad tho right under tho War Regulations Amendment Act, 1916 (rent clauses), to remain in occupation at >a standard rental of Bs. per week. It wag Alleged that tho notice to quit waß not suffloient. Tho defence was a general denial, and tho claim that the War Eegulations Amendment Act could not be invoked, since the premises were reaulred for an employee of the defendants. Further, it , was alleged that tho warrant and ejectment were valid and legal. After hearing I argument His Honour reserved his decision. A JIAWKE'S BAT CASE. His Honour Mr. Justico Kdwards heard, argument in the case of Wri-g-ht and 1/ittle v. tho Hastings Borough Council. Mr. B. J. Dolan (Napier) appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. 0. P. Skerrett. K.C., with him Mr. E. H. Williams, for tho defendant borough. This was an action in which the plaintiffs, who are land owners, sought to recover £1150 as damages in respect to an injury alleged to have been caused by the faulty construction of the 'borough sower from tho boundary to its outlet in the river. There was also a claim for an injunction. When tho case was hoard at Hastings the amount of damage was left by tho Judge to tho jury, which fount! that plaintiffs wero entitled to £100 if they were entitled to succeed. ThcJudgo reserved all other questions for' himself, and these were argued yesterday. Judgment was reserved. RESERVED JUDGMENT. The Chief Justico (-Sir Robert Stout) delivered reserved judgment in the ease ofi Charles Wadlcy, who appealed against a decision given by Justices of tho Peace at Lower Hutt. Appellant was convicted under Section 30 of the Police Offences Act of being drunk while in chargo of a motoroar, and fined. Ho appealed against that decision on the ground that it was not warranted by the evidence. In tho course of his judgment, His Honour said thcro "was no definition of tho term 'when is a man drunk?' but tho Statute recognised degrees of drunkenness. The test in tho present caso "was, was the person in charge of tho vehicle which collided with another vehicle on tho Hutt Road in such a sta-to from imbibing alcohol as not to be able to manage tho carriago of which he was in charge? Thcro was strong cvidenco that appellant was under tho influence of i liquor; on the other hand witnesses who saw tho appellant immediately before the accident stated that ho wis sober, but that evidence did not displace that of witnesses who had closely observed him at the garage and after the accident. Iho ! appeal was dismissed with £5 ss. costs. I Mr. J. <!• M'Orath appeared for tho appeli lant at the hearing, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey. of the Crown -Law OHlce. for Iho : respondent, Constable Ryan Holmes.