PALMERSTON SUPREME COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 8760, 11 March 1907, Page 2

PALMERSTON SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Chapman). THE AKITIO CASE. Mr McGregor, for plaintiff, in addressing His Honor, said that on the finding of the jury ho could not possibly ask for judgment, but would ask that judgment be entered for defendant. Also, that His Honor fix the compensation. His Honor said that in fixing compensation the whole circumstances have to he considered. The sou being a willing contributor, the Court had to take into consideration that as the father and mother were getting on in years, they would natur-.-ally rely upon the sons to keep them. Com-, pensation would be fixed nt £IOO under section 0 of the Workers’ Compensation Act, costs as per scale, together with witness expenses and disbursements, Mr McGregor requested His Honor to also fix compensation at £2OO in the Public Trustee v. Akitio Sawmilling Company, which request was granted without costs. A FEILDING CASE. William J. Williams (Mr Young) v. William Abbott (Mr Myers) specific performance £IOGO damages and counterclaim £2OO. It appeared that on 9th August, 1906, defendant contracted to take from plaintiff a lease certain lands and premises at Feilding known as the Empire Hotel, for 10 years at a yearly rental of £520. Defendant also agreed to purchase the goodwill, furniture, and household effects lor £4,500, and to pm-hasc stock in trade and goodwill of license .h valuation. Defendant failed to complete the agreement. Plaintiff was compelled through failure of defendant to carry out his contract to remain in possession at groat cost and inconvenience.

The defence was that the takings wore over-estimated, and that they do not reach £l2O per week. That all things necessary to be done by plaintiff to entitle him to have the agreement performed on his part have not been done, in-as-much as ho has not acquired a title to the hotel to enable him to grant a lease, nor has any lease been yet tendered to.defendant for execution.

A counter claim for £2OO, paid as a deposit, was put in. Plaintiff was examined at considerable length, his evidence being practically the same as sot out in the claim. Dougald Thompson stated that defendant met him in Feilding and together they went over to the hotel. He detailed the circumstances which led. up to defendant agreeing to take the hotel. For the defence, W. Abbott said that plaintiff told him that the profits were about £BOO per year. Judging from the quantity of boor consumed, ho did not think the takings wore as high as represented.

The legal arguments will be heard by bis Honor when the Court of Appeal -sits, in Wellington-. F. J. Anderson, of Huntly, proceeded against A. Yule, of Qnga.Onga, for relief from forfeiture of- tenancy. , Mr Cooper for plaintiff and Mr Smith (Pabiatua) for defendant. It appears that defendant agreed to lease to plaintiff a property near Pabiatua. Plaintiff accepted and tool: possession, paying all rent except a half yearly instalment falling duo on January 14th last. On February 12th defendant, wishing to rc-onter upon the land and terminate ' the lease, sent a notice to that effect, which plaintiff” denied having received. Oh February 10th the plaintiff’s, solicitor paid tho amount of rent'due. Tho 1 plaintiff accordingly asked that he bo granted relief from tho forfeiture. The defence was that plaintiff left, the district soon at ter leasing the place without making any, provision for paying " the rent lulling 1 duo oh January 14th, or giving notice to the effect that ho had left anyone’ in charge who would attend to his business ‘while absent. 'Defendant seeing 'tAat cattle frequently strayed on to the land; and not being able to find any responsible person, re-entered and took possession*lie sent a notice to plaintiff and a demand for rent. Counsel for plaintiff and defence addressed the Courfc at considerable length, after which his Honor reserved his decision.