Ostler v. Levin Borough Council.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 26 November 1912, Page 3

Ostler v. Levin Borough Council.

A COMPLICATED ACTION

His Honour Air Justice Cooper heard argument in tho Supreme Court on Friday on an originating

summons issued upon an agreed statement of facts to ascertain .the positions of two defendants, against one of whom judgment had been given in the lower court. The parties were. Emily H. OstW, widow, of Levin, plaintiff, and the Lovin Borough Council, defendants. Air A. R. Atkinson .appeared for plaintiff and Mr A. Fair for defendants. I'Yom the statement of the wise it appeared that in 1800 the. Ilorov.lienua Comity Council leased ft piece of land to Mrs Ostler. It was the ordinary form of loa.se, and, according to that, any buildings placed upon the laud would become the property of the county, whoso reversionary interest subsequently passed to the Levin Borough Council. In ISiU Mrs Ostler sub-leased the land to various tenants whose interests were now vested in Mrs Weitzel, and in this sub-lease there was a covenant which gave Mrs Weifzel the right to remove buildj ings. Later, tho Lovin Uorough Council acquired Airs Ostler's interest, hiilijeci to the under leases Recently the lease (which has a currency of twenty-one years) expired, and the question arose as io the right to remove buildings. Airs Weitzel proceeded against Airs Ost ler in the lower court, claiming damages, .and the magistrate gave judgment, in plaintiff's favour. An action (al<:> brought by Airs AVeitzel) against the borough council, as third party, was adjourned, and the position of the council had not been ascertained. The originating snm•iiniis now before the court was issued for the purpose of determining whether the covenant in the underlease, relating tn the removal of buildings, was binding, as between the parties, on the Levin Borough Council. Mr Fair, in argument, contended that the covenant had not pn.sscd to Mis Wcitzol with tho transfer of the lease, but admitted, in answer to his Honour, that this largument would go as far as to say that Airs Weitzel was not entitled to judgment against either Airs Ostler or tli<* Levin Borough Council, His Honour thought an injustice might be done if this point were argued without Airs AVeitzel being represented. Afr Atkinson pointed out that tbo amount recovered by Mrs AVeitzel under the judgment in the Magistrate's Court had already been paid, and the time within which a hearing could be obtained or an appeal bulged had expired. Therefore the only material point remaining was ■is to whether the borough council ■should indemnify Mrs Ostler. After further argument, his honour reserved his decision.