RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1726, 11 April 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before H. M'Culloch, Esq., R.M.). Tuesday, Bth APBii. Sloan v. Ony on. — This was a claim for £7 lis, for goods delivered. Defendant did not appear. Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 14 s. Millar v. Kerr. — '1 his was an action to recover the sum of £6 for house rent, and 8s for broken window glass. Mr Wade appeared for defendant, and pleaded a setoff of £3 12s for town rates, and den ed liability for the broken glass. The balance, £2 Bs, was paid into Court. The point of public interest iv the case was the question of the right of the tenant to recover from the landlord town rates paid by him on behalf of the property occupied. On this subject Mr Wade contended that the defendant, as a tenant, had a right to recover • that he was a tenant at will, or at the moßt a tenant from year to year ; and he quoted from the Conveyancing Ordinance to show that it provided that in all leases there was an implied covenant that the tenant should pay rates, the inference being that in the absence of this special enactment the burden, by common law, would devolve upon the landlord. The same ordinance provides that no lease shall be good except it be by deed. There was no deed of lease in the present case. Any demise or lease which may have existed was by implication oi law, and not under the ordinance. Consequently there was no implied covenant on the tenant's part to pay rates. In the Municipal Corporations Ordinance it was provided that the tenant is primarily liable for rates. Where property is unoccupied, the landlord is liable. Section 92 of this ordinance provides that where "the landlord is liable for rates either under this ordinance, or by contract, or otherwise, the tenant who has paid the rates may deduct them from the amount due to the landlord, or may

■SOaDt^ l '*-^ recover the amount at law. Mr Wade further contended that iho Legislature, in making the tenant primarily liable to the Corporation for rates, coul 1 never have meant that he was to payout of V- own pocket without the right to recover from the landlord, but only to enable the Corporation to proceed at once against the -as'est and most accessible debtor ; and he put a c:ise that the tenant might be iv possession of p-operty for a week or two, and so be obliged to pay the rate* for aye ir, it the tenant and not the landlord were liable. Further, the rates in question were levied upon property ani not on tlie person of either lan fiord or tenant, and, iv the absence of a special or implied covenant between the landlord and the tentnfc or occupier, there could be no doubt that the landlord was the person ultimately liable. His Worship reserve! his decision. Thttbsdat, lOrn April. Yule v. Birchall. — This was an action to recover £100 for goods sold and deliverei. Mr Harvey appeared for plaintiff, an 1 Mr Matthews for defendant. Mr Matthews contended that the summons, which had been left at plaintiff's tesi lence, ought to have been served on plaintiff personally, and that there was no evidence before the Court to show that reasonable diligence ha I h »en used to effect such personal service. His Worship held that the summons had bean fairly served, and refused an application by Mr Matthews for anadjournment. An acceptance by the defendant for a portion of tlie amount was put in, and the plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that it had been dishonored. As, however, it did not appear that plaintiff had presented the acceptance in person at the bank, Mr Matthews contended that his evidence was not legal proof that ie had been dishonored. Mr Dickinson, the account mt at the Bank of New Zealand, was then called to prove that the bill had not been paid. Mr Matthews further demanded direct proof that each article specified iv the account had been actually delivered to the defendants, out ultimately abandoned this point. Judgment for plaintiff, £100. Mr Harvey applied for immediate execution. His Worship sail thafc he would grant immediate execution, but thafc there would be no sale until the bailiff had been instructed by the Courfc. Cochran Sf Blackwood v. Birchall. — Thia was a claim for £ I*2 ls 4d, for goods sold aud delivered. Mr Wade for plaintiffs, and Mr Matthews for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff-;, with costs.