PATEA R.M. COURT.

Patea Mail, 30 August 1882, Page 3

PATEA R.M. COURT.

Tuesday, before Mr C. A. Wray, R.M. ACTION AGAINST SURETIES FOR RENT. A case of considerable importance, involving a legal question that appears to be without recorded precedent, was heard to-day. Mr Felix O’S. M’Carthy had leased the Green Island fellmongery, near Patea bridge, to Mr William Howe, for five years, at a rental of £SO per quarter. The lease was also signed by Mr W. Williams sent*, and Messrs Williams Brothers (his sons) as sureties for due pa\ rment of the rent. A danse in the lease stipulated that the only one of the covenants affecting them should be the one by which they engaged to be responsible for the rent. Mr.Howe failed, and the fellmongery ceased working. Some time elapsed, and the lessor then claimed and sued the sureties for a quarter’s rent due, £SO. Out of three sureties, one had failed (W. Williams, senr), and the action was brought against the remaining sureties, Williams Brothers. They objected to pay any rent accruing after Howe’s failure, on the plea that his bankruptcy had put an end to the lease ; that bankruptcy is equivalent to death in the legal sense ; and that the lease was in no way binding on the sureties after the lessee’s bankruptcy. The effect would be that if the sureties are responsible at all after the lessee’s bankruptcy, they are responsible for the rent during the full term of five years. This was the plaintiff’s contention, and the defendants disputed it as contrary to law. Mr Barton argued the case for the plaintiff, and Mr Hamerton for the defendants. Mr Barton contended that the whole contract was contained in the terms of the lease, and that evidence could not be called to explain or vary the lease : it must be construed as complete within itself. Mr Hamerton argued that the lease being ambiguous as to the extent of liability of certain parties named in the lease, he could call evidence to explain the ambiguity. Mr Batten objected because if Mr Hamerton could show by evidence that the Messrs Williams are not tenants, the lease is at an end in consequence of Howe’s bankruptcy. He contended that this question is to be decided not by evidence outside the lease, but upon the lease itself. Magistrate : It seems to me they are tenants by the wording of the lease. Mr Hamerton : The}' are in the lease only as sureties, not as persons to perform acts of tenancy. Mr Barton : The operative clauses do lease the fellmongery to Messrs Williams jointly with Mr Howe ; and the point should be determined by the operative clauses. Mr Hamerton : They accept the lease subject to the restrictions stated in the lease. My theory is that the bankruptcy of tlie real tenant would release the guarantors. Magistrate : According to the English law, it does not appear that it would have that effect. Mr Barton : The lease says they are both lessees and sureties. Magistrate : Yes, I think so. Mr Barton : We have each decided that either one or other will appeal against the Court’s decision ; so that we wish to obtain a decision, in order that ah appeal may be made against it, the point being an important one. The advocates then agreed to argue only the legal question before the Court. For this purpose they agreed to make certain admissions, in lieu of evidence. Mr Hamerton then stated his argument, contending that Mr Howe’s bankruptcy put an end to the lease, because lie being .the only tenant had ceased to be the tenant, and the rent therefore ceased with his bankruptcy. Mr Barton stated hia theory, contending that the parties who signed the- lease as sureties for the due payment of rent remain liable for rent during the wholeterm of five years- stated in the lease ; that they were joint lessees ; and that the bankruptcy of any one of them did not and could not annul the legal obligation of the others to carry out the terms of the lease for the whole period of five years. The R.M. reserved judgment till next Tuesday. KICKING A HORSE. Mr A. Palmer had summoned Thomas Payton for brutally kicking a horse. Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr Palmer said lie saw Payton kick the

horse on the flank and make it bleed, in a blacksmith’s shop. Defendant said the horse had kicked at him, ami he kicked back," but did not intend to hurt it. Case dismissed on payment of costs. LEAVING VEHICLES STANDING. F. Donoghne and S. Barraclough were each summoned for leaving vehicles on the street, contrary to borough bye-laws. Mr Doncghue said the bye-laws are too stringent, as vehicles must be left standing sometimes opposite the Coach Factory. Magistrate said these being the first cases of the kind, he would dismiss them, butju future cases ho would have to inflict costs. DEBT CASES. Jas. Lett v. W. Busby was a claim for .£3 18s 3d, goods supplied. Defendant did not appear, and judgment was given against him. Mr Lett said the defendant is employed by Government on railway work, and he asked the Court to allow interest to be charged on the account until it is paid. Magistrate said he might take out a distress warrant. Mr Lett : Bnt he has got only a washing tub and a chair. I may go against him for defrauding mo. Magistrate : You have your judgment. Barker v. T. Haywood senior was a claim for £24 4s 3d, sheep &c supplied. Defendant disputed one item of 25 sheep, saying ho got only 23. After hearing evidence, judgment was given for the fall claim, and costs.