MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 132, 28 October 1914, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before Mr A. Crookc, S.M.) DISPUTED CLAIM FOR RENT. At the Magistrate's Court yesterday, Michael Jones (Mr. Grey) sued Joseph In-ley (Mr Standish) for Ills in respect of cab hire, and ilio-os I'yr half a year's rent of a paddock at fciiuart road. According to plaintiffs evidence, he let the paddock to defendant for 12 months at a rent of £SO Ids, hut at Cue end of six months, defendant vacated the holding without paying any rent. There were about 7 or 8 chains of fencing burnt down and traces of where fern had heen burnt. I'laintilf had himself kept the fern down.

To Mr Standish: When defendant took tho land it was in a, fair state, the fences being' in good order. Defendant said 'he had a son wlio was not fit for anything hut farm work, and if he (defendant) could dispose of his Xapier property, lie would purchase. plaintiff's land. Xo mention was made of a three years' tenancy, nor was there any proposal that defendant should graze the property in return for keeping down the weeds. There was an arrangement that if defendant put up a dividing fence and Lurnoil and grassed a portion containing high fern, plaintiff Would, at the cud of the year, allow three months' rent for that work. Defendant accepted the terms in writing, and at plaintiff's request, promised to come to town and sign a proper agreement, hut failed to do so. 'Subsequently d'-fendant asked plaintiff if he would consent to sign a lease to be drawn up by his (defendant's) daughter to save expense, and plaintill' agreed, provided the document was in proper order and duly stamped. lie-examined: Xo improvements at all were 'done by defendant beyond putting a match to some fern. Had sent defendant accounts for rent which had never been disputed. The defence was that the alleged tenancy was never entered into, but that defendant's occupancy was left for his son and pursuant to an understanding that the grazing was to be a set oil' against the work of keeping the weeds down, and that three months' rent was to be remitted. Defendant stated that about twothirds of the ground was covered with fern, gorse and ragwort. His version of the arrangement was that if lie (defendant) would undertake to get rid of the furze, fern and ragwort, Mrs Ingley could have the use of the land to graze a few cows, and that plaintiff would only Jease it for at most three years, with the right to determine the tenancy at any time, plaintill' to undertake to put the boundary fences in proper order; allow one quarter's rent at the commencement of the lease and another quarter's rent at the end of the lease, or if sold earlier, pay the rates and taxes anil keep down noxious weeds, There never was any lease.

To His Worship: Witness occupied the land free of rent, as what he did in keeping down weeds amounted to a very hi:: rent.

To Mr. StandUh: Told plaintiff that his (defendant's) son would have nothing to do with the land.

Cross-examined: The first time the matter of tenancy was arranged with plaintiff was on March 21, The letter of March 11, in which he agreed to take the land as per "our arrangement of yesterday"' must have referred to previous conversations with respect to tenancy. The land was not worth ,ClO a year. Knew nothing- about the (Ire which burned down tiic fencing 1 . At one finii: there were 12 co\- s grazing on the lßinl, as well as the neighbors' horses. A few days after he received the account from plaintiff he called on aim and risked what he meant by it. Was only occupying the land as a tenant at will, no rent being payable. Did not employ any labor to bum fern, etc.; what was done was voluntary work. There was ecarcelv a -blade of grass on the land, and his wife had to remove her cows to other land.

To his Worship: Had only received one account from plaintiff, dated August 18. Oeo. R. Rogers gave evidence as to tho state of the fences and burning gorse, etc. The silling price was £3l It's an acre.

In giving judgment, his Worship said the only question was whether any sum should be a'lnwed for the work dnncJiv defendant, After the exposure defendant had made of himself over the letter pet in he could not place reliance on his credibility. He would al'ow ..Co for the burning, give judgment for ~-d 10s, and costs X-'l 2s. .