DISTRICT COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5516, 30 November 1878, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Friday, November 20. (Before his Honor Judge Maneford.) HALL V. BIRCH. His Honor delivered judgment in this case as follows Tho jury in this caso having found that the tenancy was a monthly one, in which I fully concur, judgment was recorded for tho plaintiff, leave being reserved for the defendant to apply for a nonsuit on tho ground that insufficient or improper notice had been given to determine tho tenancy. It is uncertain, and indeed could not bo ascertained when tho tenancy commenced,but it was conclusively proved that tho rent was payable monthly on tho first day of every month. Notice was given on tho 18th day of May to determine tho tenancy on the first day of tho following July, so that upwards of a month was given, the notice expiring at one of tho usual monthly days of payment. Tho tenancy having been monthly, a month’s notice is sufficient, and I am of opinion, after referring to tho numerous casoa cited in tho course of tho argument, that the notice properly expired on tho first day of the month, and not on tho last day of tho month, A tenancy commencing at Lady Day, or any other quarterly festival, expires on tho festival and not tho previous day, Tho case of Docdern Finlayson v. Bailoy, 5 Oar and Payno, relied upon by the learned counsel for tho defendant, is scarcely in point ; tho notice in that coso was doomed void for uncertainty, the tenancy was a weekly ono ; it was uncertain whether it commenced on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, and tho notice was given on a Wednesday to determine tho tenancy on tho following Wednesday. Application to enter nonsuit refused, with costs.