DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2574, 21 June 1881, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMAEU—THIS DAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward.) CIVIL CASES. Young v. O’Callaghan, claim £2oo,for breach of contract. Mr Jameson for plaintiff, and Mr C. Perry for defendant. This case had been adjourned from yesterday, in order to allow of the attendance of a material witness. The short facts of the case were that some time ago O’Callughan, the defendant, purchased a piece of land at Arowhenua, from Ford and Co., auctioneers, and let the same to Young and Chapman, the plaintiffs. Subsequently O’Callaghan obtained a release from Ford and Co., as to the purchase of the land, on the payment of £260. Young and Chapman now sought to recover damages from O'Callaghan for breach of agreement with them re their occupancy of this land.

J. T. Ford deposed to the sale to O’Callaghan of some 360 acres of land at the Arowhenua. Ten per cent, of the purchase money was paid at the time of the sale, and the rest was to be paid by instalments. The defendant, however, subsequently asked witness to take the land uack. This he declined to do, but afterwards, at the defendant’s request, witness gave him, on July 8, 1880, a release from his bargain, in consideration of the payment by him of the sum of £260. Was subseqently evicted ,by Ford and Co.

Allan Young, one of the plaintiffs, stated that he had rented some 360 acres (more or less) of land at Arowhenua from O’Cailaghan. Remembered Mr Ford visiting the land and telling them that O’Callaghan nad failed to meet his engagements with him, and that consequently they would have to

make fresh arrangements with regard to rental. In order to keep possession of the land witness agreed with Mr Ford to pay him an increased rental amounting to £540 a year. A. B. O'Cailaghan, a clerk in holy order’s, the defendant, deposed to the purchase of the land and to the release given to him by Ford and Co., also to his having re-let the land to Young and Chapman, the plaintiffs. A considerable amount of legal argument ensued, as to the possessor of the title to the land at tiie lime of Young and Chapman’s eviction. Judgment had not been delivered when we went to press.