RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume X, Issue 1218, 6 December 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.—GISBORNE.

Y eiteßday, [Before M. Price, Esq., R.M.] Darnell v. ross— continued. P. Parnell, sworn, deposed : I went to Ross’s house and asked Mrs Ross for rent I due, and was refused. I left the notice to ; quit with her. I served the notice to quit ' myself, and the notice was also posted. Mr McDougal addressed the Bench. This is a case of dispute between a vendor and ■ purchaser, and is an attempt to make out ; inferentially that a tenancy has been estab- I lished by admission. In reality the R.M. ; Court has no jurisdiction in’the matter. He , would call Andrew Young Ross : I am the defendant in this case, and was the owner in fee simple of this house and land. 1 never became a tenant to Mr Parnell. I sold to him, not personally, but through on agent, Mr De Lauour, £25 above all expenses and the mortgage money to Wilson was the consideration given me by Parnell in the agreement. I have never received the £25 or any part of it.“l had two conversations with Mr Nolan regarding the matter. The first time, he met me in the street and said he had £25 for me, and I went into his office with him, and he told me to call again. I demurred, and it was agreed I should go and fetch Mr Day ; which I did. He came over with me, and I authorised Mr Nolau to pay Mr Day £25 on account of my agent, Mr De Lau* tour. Nothing transpired, such as Nolan saying to Day, “ Ross has agreed to these deductions from the £25.” I then went away. The second time may be nearly a fortnight afterwards. It must have been nearly a fortnight, because 1 was away. The next time I met Mr Nolan in the street, he said, “ by the way, I’ve got that money for you, but Parnell says he’s going to charge you rent.” I was surprised. He went over to see Parnell, and I went straight over to Day and told him to be very particular in not accepting less than £25, aud I was determined not to quit until I had got the whole £25, and I was entitled to a month’s notice after the money was paid. I never knew of any money teingpaid until some time afterwards, when Mr Nolan stuck me

up in the street regarding it. Nothing was said to me previous to this regarding deductions. Nolan said nothing regarding having paid Day, in fact, he was going to pay me himself. I never agreed to any deductions regarding rent. Cross-examined by Mr Nolan : I never went into figures with you with reference to a deduction for Dickson’s rent to be made. You said something to me at the 2nd interview. 1 did not ever agree with you that a proportion of Dickson’s rent should be deducted from the £25. You proposed it, but I never agreed. I never agreed with you that a deduction should be made on account l of my occupancy of the cottage I was then using, I did not, positively, agree in your office in Day's presence that £l2 10s should be deducted as rent from the £25 for Dickson’s and my own rent; the proposal was made but not in Day’s presence. I positively never agreed with you to remain in the house iat a rental of Bs. I authorised you at the | first interview to settle with Mr Day by payI ing him £25 which was the sum agreed upon. ■ Mr McDougall addressed the Bench, and ! urged that in this case the plaintiff was really ! the purchaser and the defendant the vendor I of a property, and the former now felled on the terms of an agreement to turn Ross out. There was no evident reliance on the fact of release of the mortgage to Wilson. The learned counsel for the plaintiff endeavored to establish a tenantry where no such thing existed. The law of landlord and tenant did ’ nut apply to a vendor The Court would j suffer itself to be made a tool of. The onpoi site aide had come here as a cheap medium I for obtaining higher law. The notice to quit : was quite consistent with the plaintiff’s posi- ■ tion, but he must submit there wasnotenan- ; toy» and this Court had no jurisdiction in the i matter.

I Mr Nolan said he was sorry that, instead of being counsel in this matter, he was not a I witness. He was sorry to say that never in ; his experience had he known anyone to get j into a witness-box and swear so deliberately to lies. He should submit that there was a tenantcy, and rent had been paid, and the | notice to quit is a good and sufficient one. He would submit that his Worship could not go beyond the evidence of Mr Day, who was Mr Ross’s agent, and with whom the plaintiff had dealt. He would submit that the Act had been conformed with ; that tlie defendant wm a tenant; and the plaintiff was entitled to a writ of ejectment. His Worship said this was a case where one man gives his evidence against another. Mr DeLautour, us Ross’s agent, had received certain moneys, and allowed deductions for I lickson’s and Ross’s rent. Such was Day’s story ; but Mr Ross denied that any authority had been given. If Day's evidence mas correct there was a tenantry. If Ross's evidence was correct there was no tenancy. The question before the Court is, does such tenancy exist ? A good deal has been said about a cheap mode of wetting rid of a tenant being sought in the present procedure, and about the hesitating way of giving evidence. It is not always the most positive evidence which carries most weight. On the whole he thought the case was so far established as to warrant his ordering defendant to be removed from the house and premises by this day week, the J2th inst., at or before 12 o'clock noon ; but he would make no order respecting rent. Costs would be awarded to plaintiff, £2 6s.