SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3158, 9 August 1917, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

CRIMINAL SESSIONS

JURY DISAGREES

Tho criminal sessions of the Supremo Court -wore resumed yesterday morning leiforo the Chief Justice (iSir Robert Stout). Mr. T. It.' Meredith, of the Crown Law Otico, appeared as prosecutor.

John Robert. Nicollo was chariro -with a. series o£ indecont assaults on 6cvcral littlo children. Mr. H. F.' O'Loary defended.

The defence was an absolute denial of tho assaults aliened by tho Orown. Evi- ' denco was called with, tho object 'of showing that tho children's story was improbable. Accused himself entered tho witness-box. • 1 ' Hie jury retired at 4.40 p.m.. and at 9 ' p.m. reported a disagreement. 1 iHia Honour ordered a fresh trial. Ac- : rased was released on bail in the amount : of £100, with ono security of £l!Kk A CIVIL ACTION .. LANDLORD AND • TENANT. i Points of law of' interest to landlords ■ pnd tenants wore decided. by Mr. .Tus'tico ; CJhapmau in tho case of Sewell v.' Donald and Sons, Limited, yesterday. Mrs. Sewell . was tho tenant of Donald and Sons, Ltd., under an implied tenancy.'' determinable by ft calendar month's notice. The company • gavo her. notico. to! quit "in ono month from tho limb yon roceivo this notico," and then trued to recover possession,- alleging that tho premises.were' roar sona.bly required for tho occupation of some pc'rson in its employ, one of- the n-rounds on which a landlord may, under tho War-Legislation Amendment Act, 1916, rocovor possession of a. dwelling. I'ho Magistrate .who heard the ca«c mado an order for possession on. April 12 (subsequently- extended to. April IB by. consent of tho parties as the .Ea'ster holidays interiencd). and Mrs. Sowell wm cjocted, by the bailiff in' pursiianco" of' a warrant issued by tho Magistrate. '-''She (Subfetiucnt\y obtained, leave to appeal against the Magistrate's decision, but abandoned tw •nnwl and'in Hcu thereof eued Donald •and' Sons. "Limited. for-£«00-. damage* for trespass, claiming- that sho had been wrongly ejected because tho notice In'sufflcicnt. owing to her being required to. milt, within a month in-.lieu..of at tho expiration, nf a month, and algo owing to "month" in a. notice meaning -a, lunar month of-28 days insteßd of al calendar month, and also hceaiiso tho .landlord, had not.' reasonably ' required, the w.em»««sglut furthor claimed, tnat tho s judgment -was no protection to the landlord, as by- Sect-ion-177 of. the Magistrates Court/ Act, 1908, nothing- m -the. Act. Is deemed to protect a person to -whom a warrant for the recovery of .possession IS rMntcd from any action lum.. oy a tonojit in-respect of. such taking.possesion Tvher.o the : landlord-haft .not -wnijn the warrant, was granted, lawful rightJo tlie possossiMi of the.-premises,. These, and-other -issues of law .were areyed before Mr.Jnstico Ohfl.nman by; It. .ByWnroii (Ma.sterton) for tho plaintiff and hlr John Findlay. K. 0... for the defendant ■ In delivering his judgment on such Issues of law. His Honour held that although at common law -'month';. meant..* r -' month, It might bo. show:n . Unit tao intention to use tie .word, in .a strict legal sense was -negatived. This' <»* here, wliero the inference, was thst in gi'VJng- a- month's notico-. the "iontli meant, was a- calendar -month, as defined by tho statute. Ho further' held that there was nothing -in tho notice. Inconsistent .-with- the tenant's right to retain possession until tho last diiy-of tho «a<'ndar wonth Tho notice was, therefore, pood,. Els Hoponr hc'.d- that •in Sections li 6 end _177.0f tho Magistrates Court Act/ .the ,^P) Bla iV- r ° intended that tho tenant, Eotwithstandjngthe judgment, of the Magistrate and the issue of .thewarrant, by him,.should have tho right'lo. reopen tho quesHoii or whether tho landlord .was lawfully entitled to tlio possessibn.'Of tho pr.emises ol' not. However, under Section 5 of the War Leg s- * lation .Amendment -Act, 1916... tho Mag is-, trato- had unrestricted; imdicwi-l. hotop;to. the premises-were legally required nr..not, and that Sections Ire 1 and. 177. of tlio' Magistrates Court Act ha(l no anriU'c&tidn Itj'tiio present case. . . ■ His Honour's.decision waß, therefore.tna* tho noticb .was.. BUlßcient, and' that • the Magistfato's.ldPfisi'Op.'bbiind tho parlies to i.ho .action, ' ' '. ' . "