TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

King Country Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 190, 13 September 1909, Page 2

TE KUITI S.M. COURT.

Thursday, September 9, 1909. Before Mr F. O'B. Loughnan, S.M. Judgment went by default in the following cases: —Cotter Bros. v. Carrick, £l6 14s lid and costs £1 10s 6d; Albrechtsen v. same, £23 19s 6d and costs £2 4; Erikson ard Verner v. Tangi Weeti, £7 13s 6d and costs £3 03 6d. —An Assault Case. — Mclndoe v. Sorlie: Mr Finlay appeared for informant and defendant who did not appear was represented by Mr Sharpies. A plea of not guilty was entered and evidence as to the assault was given by informant. Mr Hawkins and Dr Fullerton also gave evidence. Mr Sharpies then withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty. His Worship inificted a fine of £lO and costs £3 17s, and directed that £3 3s of the fine should be paid to the informant. —Claim and Counter Claim. — Cotter Bros, for whom Mr Finlay appeared, claimed the sum of £4 12s 3d from IJ. W. Mabbett for goods supplied. Mr Mabbett, who was represented by Mr Sharpies counter claimed £7l 4s from Cotter Bros, for rent of premises. Judgment for the amount of the claim was agreed upon and the counter claim was defended. Plaintiff, in the counter claim, based his claim on the fact that he purchased a section in Te Kuiti township upon which the old ball stood. The adjoining section owned by Cotter Bros, had two buildings on it, the shop nearest the hall being occupied by Messrs Blackman and Cobb. After Mr Mabbett purchased the hail section, it was found that the shop occupied by Blackman and Cobb encroached on the adjoining section. A lean-to on the side of the shop, and a small corner of the main build'ng were found to be on Mr Mabbett's section. Various proposals were made as to a settlement of the matter and finally it was agreed that Cotter Bros, were to remove the Main building on to their own section and leave the lean-to for Mr Mabbatt, the leanp-to to be boarded up where tb"> side was taken away. This work was done by Cotter Bros, who claimed that this was in full settlement. Mr Mabbett claimed that he also required rent for the lean-to from the time he bought the section until the building was handed over to him by Cotter Bros. Evidence was given by the plaintiff to the effect that the agreement arrived at between himself and Mr R. Cotter included compensation for th" occupancy of the buildinjr as v.-r.i! as possession of the buil-lin.ir in !h< :na.".ner stated. He had rc-civ-i ten shillings per week rental for the buildine: since obtaining possess!-a > f it. It had been tenanted m.".-t < f th- vr:. : and was let at iux.-'- :.i. For the defmro it was admilte-i thai the builriin- < ncnia.-k-i <,n Mr Mai - bett's :--<-rti-. :: . :.':• !:. Cyv.y iraw evidence thai L<- ; tn'vhas- r ! I:■■'-■ ]■!'•.'- pertv fr">i. Mr <;:;..-•<■:; ar/i ■:>.". ?:o* ]:::("■ the r. r .rree'-hi..i .-n i\:<- ad>inMaI.UU. \Yitr--ss slated the agreement was. in full settlement an i t'n-.rc-was no mention of rent for the {.'remises. Evidence was also given for the de

1 fence by Mr J. T. Hetet and Mr Blackman the latter stating that he had an option over :h r - ha"; section which cube obtained the onthm fmni Mr V. S. t ion. ; His Worship in reviewing the evi- • dencre said there was a question of real property law involve:.. As far as could be gleaned from the evidence he thought plaintiff had some idea as to how matters stood about the time he bought the section. .As to the question of strict right, of course the purchaser had a right to all buildings on i his section. j Still plaintiff admitted that the fact | of Cotter's building being partly on his section did not influence him with regard to the price he paid for the property. The building turned out to be a nice little windfall. After the survey the position of Mr Mabbett was that of the legal owner as opposed to the true owners. On the one hand there was the plaintiff with his windfall and on the other the defendant's who had paid hard cash for something they did'nt get. A settlement had been arrived at but there was a disagreement as to the exact terms. As regards that phase of the dispute he felt he should give a judgment in equity and good conscience. The evidence from that point of view favour- \ ed the defendants' estimate of the bargani. Judgment would be for de- ; fendants with costs. —A Grazing Dispute.— j F. Lever sued A. McCardle for the sum of £23 13s 8d for grazing. Mr Howarth appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Finlay for the defence. Defendant paid £8 Ss 4d into Court and contested the balance of the claim. After hearing evidence his Worship gave judgment for the defendant with £5 9s costs.