Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

This Day. (Before James Fulton, Esq., R.M.) CIVIL CASES. Duncan and Dowse v. Williams.—Claim, L 25. Mr E. Cook for plaintiffs, and Mr Harris for defendant. This was a claim for one mouth’s rent of premises, known as the Crown Hotel. —Mary Campbell, wife of James Campbell, said, her husband being from home, she agreed to allow two pounds per month off the rent until he returned, but would not ag-ee to a permanent reduction. Defendant did not settle the month’s rent, but paid something on account. On her husband's return he found fault with the arrangement, and she went and told defendant he was not pleased about it, and he had better see him. iShe had never received more than L 23 for the m nth. The rent was p .yable on the 20th of each month in an interview with her husband defendant said that he could not make the house pay at i 25 a month, and would leave if it were persisted in. It was ultimately agreed that he should have the house at L 23 a month until his time expired on the 20th November, and defendant sold off his furniture. He did not leave, hut continued in the home, and thereat was claimed to 20bh December. —Mr Harris produced a copy of the agreement for a le se to Lawrence, who had transferred it to defendant, from which it appeared that it expiedon October 20th, 1872. A receipt was produced for L 23 to 20th November In reply, witness said no new agreement was entered into. Defendant did not meet her in the street and tender amount in gold in the presence of a witn ss on the 10th January.—James Campbell said the lease was granted to Lawrence, who transferred it to Jeffrey Williams while he was in Melbourne. It was forone year and eleven months, and one month to be given over to enable the tenant to make arrangements for leaving the house. Mr- Campbell received the rents under authority from Messrs Duncan and Dowse. Notice was given to Williams to leave when the lease expired. For the defence it was urged that the plaintiffs were not the parties to sue, as th: property had been handed over to Campbell by the trustees, and that there was no agreement for extension of the lease at the firmer rental; but that it was agreed that a lease of four years at a reduced rate should be granted, '1 hat a tender of the amount due was made and refused. The deb ndant, in hH evidence, stated that, prior to taking over the lease from Lawrence, he agreed with Mrs Campbell to a reduction of rent to L2i, wi:h a renewal of the lease at a further reducted rental for four, six, or ten years. Campbell refused to grant the new lease. He had never paid rent to the plaintiffs. On Campbell calling for the rent and asking for L 25, he refused to pay that amount, and was proceeding to count out L 23 when he walked out to the bar. Defendant then called on Dowse, and tendered L 23 as rent to 20th November, when he said he would have nothing whatever to do with it. - George Uowse, one of the plaintiffs, said he was not aware of the action being brought in his name until Williams showed him the summons. He did not know whether he was still trustee for the Crown Hotel on behalf of Mrs Campbell. He ma ;e no agreement with Williams, who tendered L 23 to him, which he refused to take. Beyond granting a lease to Williams, he had taken no interest in the matters.—His Worship was satisfied there had been a permanent reduction of the rent, and that a tender and refusal of the amount put the plaintiffs out qf Court.—Mr Cook assed for a nonsuit, and plaintiffs were nonsuited, with costs. Mulrooney v. Hayes.—l3s, for half-a-dozen shovels. For the defence it was stated that defendant never bought the shovels, but only took them in order, if possible, to sell them on account of plaintiff. One had been sold, and the others were waiting to be returned. A witness was called by defendant, who considered they were bought by him. Judgment for the plaintiff for the amount, with costs.

Seven cases were called, and dismissed through non-appearance of the parties.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18730127.2.12

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Evening Star, Issue 3101, 27 January 1873, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
737

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3101, 27 January 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3101, 27 January 1873, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert