SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3848, 24 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Thdesday, May 24. (Before Mr Justice Johnston.) Campbell.—ln this adjourned thlt Barto ° a PP lie , > in an amended form, lease be granted ordering that the set / °rth between plaintiff and defenenCered into under mutual mistake : DarLt n f f I J da^ t - (1Ult an . d g' to plaintiff the mv ‘ a “Tjestwn; and that defendant H»vt r, Tj^ eeree as P ra y e( l for granted. **ooo and Othehb.—Motion for defer nln and Mr Stout appeared defend 5 Bar * on and Mr Stewart for deoro« ‘+w CouD . Bel f or plaintiff moved for a fS?.f 0 hat a T recei P t g iv en by plaintiff to de. amour) + 9 .f°m a “a ar y 1.2, 1874, be deemed to C to a , due retirement of certain . oxhangs and not to a receipt for rent;

that defendants be compelled to destroy said receipt; that defendants be desired to execute a lease; and that they be called upon to pay the costa of suit. The original case arose in connection with the letting by plaintiff, A. R. Hay, of the premises at the corner of Princes street and the Octagon, to tire defendants, Hogg and Hutton, at a rental of L 7 per week. The latter endorsed four bills of exchange (for L 600) for plaintiff’s accommodation, on conditions, as they alleged, that if the bills were not taken up when due the amounts should be considered as equivalent to three years’ rent. The bills wero not retired by plaintiff when due, and, consequently, defendants claimed to hare a three years’ tenancy of the premises—plaintiff giving them a receipt, worded in effect as fallows : —“lf plaintiff does not retire the bills when duo, defendants are to be considered to have paid rent for three years. The juiyin the case found that plaintiff gave the receipt simply as security for the bills of exchange, Mr Macassey spoke at great length, and Mr Stout followed on the same side.- Mr Stewart contended that plaintiff hud no right of action, he being merely agent for the premises for one Henry Somerville, of Auckland, to whom the property belonged. Also that the receipt was clearly given as for rent for thiee years, in the event of plaintiff’s not retiring the bills, or any of them. [Left sitting.]