LEASE OF A FARM AT TAITA

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 5, 1 October 1919, Page 3

LEASE OF A FARM AT TAITA

ALLEGED BREACHES OF COVEN ANTS.

Yeslerdav His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards delivered reserved judgment in the Supreme Court in the case of Annie Deckston v. Ernest John August. . This was an action to recover possession of a small farm at Tuita leased by .plaintiff to defendant, on- the ground of atleecrt breaches of covenant, and for „C 250 damages in respect of such alleged breaches, and also for X"2O 15s. 3d. for rates paid by plaintiff, but which ought to have been paid by defendant. The latter claim was admitted, and the amount paid into Court. , , The dofeiuia.it denied the breaches of covenant, and counter-claimed tor relief from forfeiture if the Court should be of opinion that a forfeiture had been inCllt'CGtl. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to keep the buildings and fences in good and tenantable repair. Tho buildings were at the time of the demise on May 1, 1918, very old and ruinous. and with respect to tlio fences the defendant claimed -that it t was a condition precedent to his liability to repair tlio boundarv -fences that the plaintiff should out them into good order and condition. ■ ~ „ ■ After reviewing the evidence. His Honour held that the plaintiff had failed in respect of her claim for forfeiture for breaches of covenant, and .for ,£2OO damages in respect of such alleged breaches. With respect lo the alleged oamage to fruit trees in respect of which plaintiff claimed .£sll. His Honour pointed out that from the evidence given by witnesses lor the plaintifl, tlio trees had not been destroyed, and there was no I injury to the reversion, which dispospo' of that claim. ' His Honour held, however, that tiie defendant had committed a breach of the covenant by parting with portion of the land to one Mabe.y without the written consent, of tho plaintiff. His Honour remarked that plaintiff had combined with her claim for possession, which had a sufficient basis in law, and upon which she had succeeded, an utterly untenable) claim for <Uma£es in rcdpoct of which she had failed. Justice would bo done the parties by treating the costs of each cause of action separately, and accord. iiißlv the plaintiff was awarded lis. on her claim for forfeiture, and defendant was awarded' .£2-1 costs. .At the hearing Mr. P. Levi appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. E. P. Bunny for the defendant.