SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 164, 5 April 1919, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

LIDDLE V. ROLLESTON. Tho case of Kathleen Lidclle v. Mary Rolleston was heard some days ago by His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards, who reserved judgment, and had reference to the determination of the tenancy by tho defendant of a flat in a building in Lambton Quay, formerly owned by Messrs. Skerrett and Wylie, and sold to the plaintiff. His Honour desired to hear argument by counsel on points subn itted. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. A. Blair, appeared for Mrs. Liddle, and Mr, A. Gray. ICG., with him Mr. M. Myers, for Mrs. Rolleston. The points submitted were briefly as follow:— Notice of tho sale is givon by Skerrett. and Wylie, who also say "We are requested by the buyer to give you notice that your tenancy will be determined, etc." The power to determine (mei.tioned in the proviso in (ho draft lease! is in the lessors, ami not in any purchaser, at any time during the term. Notice to determine the • tenancy purports to be given on l>ehalf of a buyer not named. Hannah is said in the notice to be tho agent for the purchaser. The contract of sale was made with Hannah as purchaser. Tho plaintiff hud no estate lege! or equitable in tho property when notice was given. Is that a good notice? The notice purports to determine the tenancy at the end of "twelve .months" from date. "Months" in legal documents ordinarily means "lunar" months. The proviso in the draft lease-says "one year." What is the position? Mr. Gray contended that tho notioe was not good and therefore the tenancy had not been legally determined. He also upheld the point as regards the time of the determination. A month in legal documents was a month of twenty-eight clays, and twelve months would be forty-eight weeks. "One year" was 365- days, or in leap year 3GG da.vs, or, sav, from April 1 to March 31. Sir John Findlay replied at length.