SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 16 June 1932, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

RENT RECOVERY CASE. GREYMOUTH, Juno 16. Reserved judgment was given yesterday morning, in the Supreme Court, by Mr Justice Adams, in a case of appeal from the decision of the Magistrate at Greymouth on March 15, 1932, in the case Patrick McCormick (ap-

pellant) v. James Steel (respondent), for the recovery of rent at the rate of £26 per annum for the use and occupation of Section 338, Greymouth Native Reserve, from July 19 } 1926, to March 1, 1931. The Magistrate'igave judgment for defendant, but Mr Justice Adams up-' lielols-.[the appeal of McCormick, giv-

ing judgment apufollows:—“The appellantgiki ;thor owiier of a small piece of landmin Gr by mouth containing 5 perchesnwhich is vested in him a.s the surviving trustee of the estate of Margaret Phelan, deceased. In March } 1924, lie gave the respondent permission to use and occupy this land, no arrangement being made as to rent. The arrangement was that the respondent should have the use of the section “till sold or required.” At common law this would create a tenancy at will, but under Section 16 of the Property Law Act, 1908, the contract was i a tenancy at will determinable by one month’s notice in writing only. The respondent entered ■ into possession in 1924, and : continued >to occupy the section until . March 31 f 1931. Verbal notice to' quit was given to the respondent on July 'l9,- 1926, but this notice was .ineffective under the Statute. -Notice under the Act was neveri(given by either party. -The appellant;.!(however, entered, aild took possession!!nnv March 31, 1931, and has henceforth'retained it to the exclusion of the respondent. The appellant is therefore, in my opinion, entitled to judgment for a reasonable, sum as compensation or rent for the period mentioned in the statement of claim, that is, from July 19, 1926 ; to March 31, 1931.

“There is little evidence to guide the Court in ascertaining the sum which should be allowed, but on the whole, considering the precarious nature of the tenancy, and the fact that the appellant did not give evidence as tp value or rental, a sum, .equal to os per week for the period mentioned, would be reasonable compensation or.rent, ' The case will be remitted -to the. Magistrate .to enter judgment for the appellant for £6l 2s and costs of appeal £8 Bs, and disbursements to •be paid by the respondent.” . The appeal, was heard in ohamlwrs on Saturday morning, when Mr; W. P. McCarthy represented tln> tappe’lant ;and Mr J. A. Murdoch, the respondent.

, A .CLAIM . SETTLED. ~: When thq ciyil case } Jackson niid McGirr Ltd. (Mr T. F. Brosnan) v. ,T. A. Lutz (Mr J. W. Hannan), a claim for £lB9 17s lOd for materials supplied, and labour, - .was ' Giallecl counsel for defendant stated .that (lie parties had settled the., case ,ou>. of. ySojiiiiU MIXING APPEAL.

The hearing of the case, W. J... Moy ris, of Reefton (Mr I, Patterson) v. Consolidated Goldfields of N.Z. Ltd (Mr J W Hannan and,Air L..W- Morgan). Two appeals from decision of Warden—(l) application for Special Quartz Claim refused with coste; ; (2) suit for damages £2,-500; alleged wrongful entry upon land—-removal of soil, gold, buildings, plant etc.;-judg-ment given for defendant—was concluded. His Honour reserving judgment. after hearing lengthy evidence, which occupied the Court for two full days. Legal argument on both sides is to lie submitted in writing.