DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2321, 12 September 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Septbmbeh 12, [Before His Honor Judge Ward.] TBUBT AND AGENCY COMPANY OP AUSTRALIA T B. J£. MOBTEN, Mr Garrick for plaintiff, Mr Stringer for defendant.—This was an action to recover £IOO for non-fulfilment of a covenant in a lease ot property in High street,Christchurch. — Mr Stringer drew attention to a question of law arising which it might be well to enter on at once.—Mr Garrick agreed to take argument on the law point.— Mr Stringer said the alleged breach of contract consisted in neglect to repair certain buildings under the lease. The question turned upon the implied covenant under the Conveyancing Ordinance. It appeared that the buildings not repaired were not on the premises as originally leased, but were erected by the defendant since his tenancy. He quoted a number of oases in support.—Mr Garrick referred to a judgment recorded in “Woodfall’s Landlord and Tenant,” as to general covenants, showing that the covenant to repair included after-ac-quired property, and in this esse he submitted that the buildings erected subsequently by defendant became part of the property demised.—After hearing argument His Honor said it appeared to him that be must take the covenant in question to be a general covenant. —Mr Garrick asked his Honor to make a vote of the admission, and then called evidence.—Messrs W. Wilson, Priestnall, Hooper, and Hatobard, were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as to the condition of the buildings on the property under lease. Their evidence went to show that the buildings were in a bad state of repair. This was the case for the plaintiffs.—Mr Stringer submitted that plaintiffs must be nonsuited. Ho pointed out that the plaintiffs were assignees of the reversion of the property under mortgage, the assignment having taken place on the 29th of August, 1876, and he contended that the plaintiffs could only claim in respect of damages since that time and up to the date of the expiration of Morten’s lease.—Mr Garrick objected to a nonsuit; he would prefer to address the Court on the whole case, and take the verdict for or against his clients. He would be prepared to show, at the proper time, that there was nothing in the point raised by counsel on the other side.—His Honor said he did not see his way to give a nonsuit at present. —Mr Stringer then called expert evidence as to the state ot the property in question.—The evidence for the defence was almost a direct contradiction of that adduced by plaintiff as to the damage.—Counsel having addressed the Court, bis Honor gave judgment for £l2 and costs. BADGER T. NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY. This case was adjourned by consent till next Court day. The Court then adjourned.