A SETTLERS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2365, 4 December 1908, Page 6

A SETTLERS’ DISPUTE.

ALLEGED BREACH OF LEASE

At -tho Magistrate’s Court yesterday -before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M., R.‘ G. Mather and Malcolm Mclnnes. proceeded against William Tumble-son to recover the sum of £75 10s damages for failure to comply with the terms of a lease of a- certain property known' as “Kaimoo,” Patutahi. Mr. J.- R. Kirk appeared for the plaintiffs and defendant was represented by Mr. G. Stock. Mr. Stock outlined the case for the plaintiffs and called Malcolm Mclnnes, who gave evidence of having leased the land in question, to defendant for a period of nine months. The buildings on tho land were all in perfectly good order, and at the time he bought the property from defendant, he also issued the l-easo to him. He went over the house at tlio time of the purchase and found everything in good order. At the expiration of tho tenancy he, in company with Iris partner, went on to the land. Defendant was not there and the door of the house was wide open with sheep on the verandah and in the flower garden. They also found the pigsty missing and things generally in a state of disorder. Tape in the bathroom had been removed by cutting the pipes and a hole had been cut in the floor.. Six panes of glass in different windows had been smashed, and one of the chimneys was undermined, and the spouting on ibe roof was in a bad state of repair. ' Mr. Kirk was proceeding to cxaaiiiie the witness further as to the general damage of the property when Mr. Stock objected, claiming that no notice had been given of any items claimed under this heading. A rather sharp exchange of remarks passed between counsel, -both being admonished by His Worship, who allowed tlio evidence to be taken. Continuing, witness gave further evidence of the condition of the property and the amount of money chat would bo necessary to put it in proper order. To Mr. Stock: When he bought the property from defendant he inspected the orchard from tlio road but did ;;ut go into it. lie could not say it die pigsty was on runners. No list was prepared'of the things that went with the property at the time of the ado. He got no furniture, with tho place, but did get linoleum and (lc- ■ cndaiit demanded to keep possession u'i the bath. He did not ask a man aimed Ballard to give a price for sewing 16 acres with rape in the spring-time. He went to Ballard when he returned from England but had no intention of getting him to do the work and only asked him about it for information. lie could not spy if defendant had removed any timber from the ground during the terms of his tenancy.

Ronald George Mather, another of the plaintiffs, gave corroborative evid nee.

Charles T. Okling, tinsmith, said that he visited plaintiffs’ place on Nov. 13. He went- to the bathroom where he saw that a lavatory had been removed and also four taps, the pipes having been cut and plugged. There was also a freshly-cut hole in tho floor -and the spouting on the roof was fn a bad state of repair.

Herbert W. Ingram gave evidence as to the time it would take to repair the windows and also as to the cost.

This concluded- the evidence for plaintiffs, and for the defendant the first witness was George Herbert Ballard, farmer and ploughing contractor, who said he had a conversation with the plaintiffs on March 2. He was sewing the 1.6-acre paddock with rape at the time ‘.and they asked him what it would cost to paat it down in the spring in the same way. He saw them again early in October, when they asked him to plough the paddock and sow rape. To Mr. Kirk: He was perfectly sure that the conversation had taken place as he. mentioned. William Tombleson said that he purchased the “Kaimoe” property about five years ago from Mr. Watson, and had since disposed of it to the plaintiffs. At that time there was a pigsty on the premises on runners. After the sale lac became lessee of the property, and told the plain till’ that be bad intended Wr sow rape in the 16-acre paddock, but they asked him. to sow it in English grasses. Ho agreed to do this if plaintiff would buy the grass-seed and send it out to the property. They did not send the seed and consequently he did not sow the paddock. During the term of bis lease two windows were broken, and if the matter bad been mentioned by plaintiff ho would willingly have paid for thorn. He removed a hath from the house, but with plaintiffs’ knowledge, and he did not wrongfully destroy ftny timber. The orchard was in a good state but some branches were broken , off the trees . by the weight of the fruit. Ho did aiot think that either the orchard or garden had deteriorated during his tenancy. To Mr. Ivirk: He did not remember having seen any cattle in the orchard nor sheep in the garden during ins tenancy. The house had been loft untenanted for a period of six or seven weeks but all the doors except one . were locked. To Mr. Stock: He was quite certain that the plaintiffs called on ihim the day they tret-urned from England. James S. Allan, plumbing manager, gave evidence as to the nature of the bath and wash-stand which had 1 been removed by defendant from thehouse. The latter was just an ordinary basin, not a fixture to the avail. The cost of repairing the windows broken would be -about £l. _ James Dalrymplo gave evidence or having visited the “Kaimoe” orchard. He found five trees with small branches broken, probably by weight of fruit. There was a lot of fruit- and the garden was looking very well.. To Mr. Kirk: Ho was -a practical gardener, but lie did not think that cattle would do any harm in the orchard. One sheep getting into the flower garden would not do harm, but more thaif one might do so. This concluded the evidence for the defendant, and -after both; counsel had addressed 1 the Court -at length His Worship reserved his decision.