SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 286, 29 August 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

LANDLORD AND TENANT ALLEGED BREACH OF COVENANTS His Honour Mr. Juotice Edwards yesterday heard the case, of Annie Dcckston, of Wellington, married woman, plaintiff, and Ernest John August, of Lower Hutt, farmer, an action for ejectment for breaches of covenants of a lease, and damages. Mr. P. Levi appeared for plaintiff, and Mr E. P. Bunny for defendant. ihe statement of claim set out that by agreement dated May 1, 1918, plaiunn agreed to let to the cleieudnut a parcel of land at Taita hold by plaintiff in Aativo leases, £n- n term of ten yeare. Ihe defendant agreed io keep the buildings, fences, etc.. in good order and repair, and it was alleged that defendant had committed certain breaches of this covenant; for instance, the side of a sued was destroyed, the door of the dairy was destroyed, the boundary fences also were more or less destroyed. ft was also alleged that the defendant allowed ms cattle to destroy certain fruit trees. I The plaintiff, therefore, claimed vosscbBion of the land, ,£2OO compensation for I damages to premise?, and JJSO compenj stttion for damage to fruit trees; comSfiQ i. !On , for oCol »pnti°n from May 1, 11H19, to dale of recovery of possession, and ,£2O Us. 3d. for'rates paid bv plainhft on behalf of defendant. l'pr the defence it was claiinci that it wns a condition precedent to anv liaMlitT on tho part of the defendant that the plaintiff should put in complete order all the boundary fences which condition was made verbally and had not been performed. The defendant denied that he fed committed tlie alleged breaches in respect to ihe upkeep and repair of tho premises. The defendant denied that the fruit trees had been in any way destroyed. Tho defendant counter-claimed thn,t if it should be iouiul that he had committed tho allied or any breaches of the said covenants he craved leave to apply to be Tclieved J™ 111 the forfeiture on such terms as the Court shall think fit. Severnl witnesses were called on both sides, and the hearing occupied the whole « T l Evidence was given for tho defence tiiat the fences on the property were now m (letter order than when the defendant took possessvvtbnt the land had teen improved in quality by the fact that Rueep have been grazing on it, and that ml 6 I m u trees wero in S° o ' l condition, .l.ne further hea.riny of tho case was adjourned until this mornin"