LEASE IN QUESTION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10296, 3 June 1919, Page 9

LEASE IN QUESTION

SUPREME COURT HEARS . FARMERS' DISPUTE. In the Supreme Court yesterday before a jury of four, Henry Farnon, of Whiteman’s Valley, Lower_ Hutt, proceeded .against John AVillianisoii, ot Trenth dm,^''-to • dAlipedf r, ~ leged failure to observe the conditions 1 of a lease of land and stock. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) was on the Bench. Air Janies MoLoUati was foreman of the jury. Air P. J. O’Regan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr E. K. Kirkoaldie for the defendant. 'Plaintiff set out in the statement of claim that during August, 1918, he agreed to lease from the defendant, for five years, : .af ' £l6O inclusive of rent on V bailment, certain land at Whiteman’s Valley, approximately, 195 acres, part of sections 19 and 20 and of section 72, Mungaroa. Plaintiff had also agreed to lease stock eleven cows and eight heifers, ; and in regard to these cattle he claimed there was a breach of the lease, it having been represented to him that the cows and heifers were in calf, and due to calve.in time for the ensuing dairy season. Six of the cows failed . to calve within the time represented. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to supply two of the cows. Also, it was alleged, it had been agreed that a boundary fence was to bo erected between the land leased to, the plmntilt and that remaining in possession of the defendant,, but the latter had committed a breach of the terms of the lease by failing to supply the material for the erection of the fence. In consequence of this, defendant’s stock trespassed on the land leased to the plaintiff, and did damage by eating of the winter feed. Plaintiff claimed £270 special damages and £SO general damages. It was admitted by the defendant that the agreement as stated had been made, but it was claimed that by a subsequent verbal agreement plaintiff leased nine cows and ten heifers, instead of eleven cows and eight heifers, which plaintiff selected out of defendant’s stock. Defendant denied any breach of agreement in regard to tho fence, claiming that ho had been ready to fulfil his obligations, but plaintiff had not been ready to do his share of the work. It was also denied that defendant’s cattle had trespassed on the land leased to the defendant, but held that, if they had, it was due to plaintiff’s fault in not being prepared to go on with the erection of the fence. The jury found that there wore only two cows in dispute, and judgment was given for the value of those, namely, £24. The question of costs was reserved.