A FARMERS’ DISPUTE.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2368, 8 December 1908, Page 4

A FARMERS’ DISPUTE.

MATHER AND McINNES V. TOMBLESON. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFFS. At the Magistrate’s Court yesterday Mr. W. A. Barton, S.M., delivered judgment as under in the case_ of Mather and Mclnnes (Mr. J. R. Kirk) v. Wm. Tombleson (Mr. G. Stock): Plaintiffs claim to recover from the defendant the sum of £'7s 10s damages in connection with a lease entered into between the parlies: 1. Special damages £65 10s made up as follows—(a) 5 windows broken, repairs at Ss each. £2 pvasli basin and taps £3 10s; (b) pigsty, or order that pigsty he delivered up. £10; (c) solving down 20 acres in good English grasses, £3O; (d) timber wrongfully cut and destroyed, £lO ; (e) orchard and garden destroyed, £lO. 2. General damages, £lO. 'Wherefore plaintiffs claim to recover from the defendant the sum of £75 10s or in the alternative £65 10s and an order for delivery of pigsty. In reference to item A (windows), it is admitted that five panes of glass were found to be broken at the expiration of tenancy, and defendant says that only two were broken during his tenancy. Defendant was bound by the covenant of the lease to repair and at all times durthe continuance of the tenancy to keep in good repair and condition all buildings, fences, gates, etc., and that being so defendant is liable for the cost of repairing all windows found broken at the expiration of the tenancy, which I assess at £1 10s. Wash basin and taps: Defendant’s evidence is that when going over the house with the plaintiffs prior to the purchase of the property by them, that he stated to them that he had had to buy the washbasin, stand, and taps from Air. Watson, and that if they wanted them they would have to buy from him. I am uot satisfied from the evidence that these articles were included in the sale to plaintiffs, and that being so I disallow the claim. Item B, pigsty: Both plaintiffs say positively that when going ever the property with defendant jiri-or to the nurchase, defendant slid “You will nave every convenience, even to a pigsty.” If that was said, which I have, no reason to doubt, it- is clear that defendant intended and did in fact sell the pigsty to the plaintiffs. The defendant does not appear to have any clear recollection of what was said. I allow upon this item the sum of £B. Item C, smving down 20 acres in grass: I am of opinion upon the evidence that nlaintiffs are not entitled to succeed upon this item. Item D, Timber wrongfully cut. I disallow this item, as there is no evidence whatever to support it, and it should certainly not have been included in the statement- of claim. Item E, Orchard and garden destroyed : There is no evidence before me to show that any damage was done to the orchard during the defendant’s tenancy. It is true that a few small branches were found broken' off some of the trees,, but as plaintiffs did not go over the’ orchard at any time hetoro the expiration of the lease they were unable to give any evidence as to when the damage was done. I cannot therefore make any allowance in connection with the orchard. In reference to the garden, I am satisfied that damage was caused through tho negligence of defendant in not properly attending to it, and also by ■allowing sheep to run over and tread it down, and plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover reasonable compensation,, which I assess at £5. The last, item is a claim for £lO for general damages. The plaintiffs say that gates and fences were out of repair, and that the spouting round the house was choked up with leaves, etc., and was leaking in several places. I am satisfied that the property was generally neglected during the term of tho lease, and defendant admits that the house was unoccupied during the last six or seven weeks of the tenancy. I allow £3 as general damages. Judgment will bo for plaintiffs for £l7 10s, with costs £3 6s.