DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2092, 6 November 1880, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Fbidat, Novembbb 5. [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] COXOHIAIi BANK 0* NEW ZEALAND V ISAAO SKBGBANT. In this ease, which was heard at last sittings of the Court, the plaintiff claimed £2OO for Tent. His Honor gave judgment for the defendant with ooatß, as follows :—The facts in this ease are as follows—On the 3rd November, 1875, Barker, tenant in fee simple of certain land, mortgaged it to the New Zealand Trust and Loan Company, and subsequently, on the 17th August, 1876, transferred it to Saunders and Henderson On the Bth September, 1877, Saunders and Henderson mortgaged it to the Colonial Bank, and on the 17th September leased the land by deed for a term of years to defendant. In December, 1878, Hender*on transferred the land in question to his joint tenant Saunders; but this transfer, with the lease and mortgage to the Colonial Bank above mentioned, were not registered till the 11th of January, 1879. On the 18th May, 1879, the Loan and Trust Company assigned their mortgage to the Colonial Bank, who thus became sole mortgagees. Saunders subsequently made an assignment in favor of his creditors, and the Colonial Bank having an agreement with the trustees, took a final transfer of the property from him, thus becoming tenants in fee of the land in -question. It appears that Mr Saunders was in 1877-8 a member of two firms, viz. Saunders and Henderson and Saunders Brothers. In August, 1878, Saunders and Henderson entered into a negotiation with Sergeant for the sale of his leasehold interest to one Parsons, who was represented by him to be a stranger from Kaikoura, but who was actually in the employ of Saunders Brothers. Sergeant agreed to sell his interee!; to Parsons for £IOOO, signed an agreement to that effect, undertook to execute an assignment of his lease at a future time, and got a bill for the money, given by Edwd. Saunders, which was duly paid. No subsequent assignment was executed by him, but he gave up possession to Parsons, and it was stated by the learned counsel for the bank that the Saunders Bros, subsequently took possession, and took a crop off the land, vacating it afterwards. Henderson was aware of the sale by Sergeant of his interest, but did not inteifere, and the partnership between Wm. Saunders and himself was dissolved a few days after the agreement for sale was signed. The signature of Wm. Saunders appears on the agreement for sale, and the negotiation seems to have been conducted entirely by him. Parsons held possession merely for Saunders Bios. The bank now sue Sergeant for rent accruing in February last, contending that there was no valid surrender of the lease by him to Saunders and Henderson. lam of opinion that this contention cannot be supported. No doubt there was no formal memorandum made oa the lease to record the surrenderno doubt, also, Henderson in no way interfered, though he was aware of the sale. But as ho was on the eve of leaving the firm, and was further about to assign his interest in -the land in question to his partner, it seems only natural that he should have left that partner to conduct the whole business ; and, under these circumstances, it must be inferred that Saunders had authority to act for both. *« to the surrender to Saunders, I think that is .clear from Sergeant's evidence. He (Sergeant) gave up possession to Pursons, with Saunders* knowledge, and at hiß request, and where there is an agreement between landlord and tenant that the latter shall deliver up possession, and possession is delivered up accordingly, that is a surrender by operation of law. No doubt Wm. Saunders' evidenoe was unsatisfactory, to say the least, but there wat no contradiction of the most important part of it. Judgment for defendant, with Co3ts. S. M. MOBTEN V BOBT. M'KBHSOW. This was a claim of £2OO, the valuo of •property wrongfully converted. Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Cowlishaw for the defendant. Counsel for plaintiff explained that the actios was taken to recover the sum stated, mado up partly of the value of goods belonging to plaintiff, which had been taken possession of and converted by the defendant; and partly of damages sustained by the plaintiff for the wrongful romoval of goods from the premises of one Ledgerwood, over which the plaintiff had a right of distress. After hearing evidence and the addresses of counsel, . < His Honor gave judgment for the plainiur lor £B3 6s 8d and coats. Toe Court then adjourned.