DISTRICT COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 140, 13 October 1870, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.

(Extended Jurisdiction.) (Before H.is Honour Mr. Justice Grey.) Tuesday, October 11.

W. Strean v. I. N. Wood, Swilzers. — Claim, £25, for illegal detention of a stack of hay, containing about five tons. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff, and Mr. Gooday for defendant.

From the evidence of plaintiff and witnesses, it appeared that in June last the plaintiff was a settler in Tapanui. That about that time he was owner of a small farm fenced in, on which was erected a small house, the said house being fixed on a sledge. At a sale the house was sold to a resident in Taj)anui. Subsequently he sold the farm to I. Nugent Wood. The hay was not sold with the farm, and the party to whom the house belonged had removed the house. Subsequpnt to the sale of the farm, the plaintiff sold the hay to Williams and Hewitt, of Tapanui, for £4 per ton. He was in treaty, prior to the sale of the farm, with these parties for the hay, although the sale was only effected afterwards. Before the hay was removed, the plaintiff had given up the key of the property to Mr. Wood's agent. At the time of the sale of the hay, the plaintiff applied for the key to give delivery, but was refused; upon which, some letters were written betwixt the parties, and the matter culminated in defendant's refusing to allow the plaintiff to enter the premises or remove the hay unless a rent of 10s. per week were paid him from the date of sale. The witnesses for plaintiff further proved that when the hay was stacked the same was well thatched, and in good condition ; but on account of its being near tho schoolhouse, and no one looking after it, the children had gone inside the fence, and to a great extent destroyed the hay. Prior to the sale, plaintiff was offered £15 per annum for a term of years for the farm. The hay might be worth from six to eight pounds at the present date.

For the defence it was proved that when the defendant purchased the property he was at Switzers. He had seen the farm previously, and knew there was a house on it three weeks before the day of purchase. He also saw a stack of hay on the ground. He understood it to be sold to him. Strean was instructed to deliver the key to defendant's agent, which was done. He heard nothing of the hay before the 7th of July. Plaintiff afterwards wrote to defendant about the hay. Defendant's agent had instructions to deliver the key to no one, nor allow anything to be removed. Defendant was offered £14 per annum for the farm for a term of five years, but on account of the hay being on the ground, could not conclude the bargain. Defendant had endeavoured to keep the party on a string until the matter of the hay was settled, but had failed. When defendant saw the house on the farm, he was not aware of its being a moveable structure. When he got delivery of the key from the plaintiff, he considered everything within the fence his property. He expected a return for the money laid out. Plaintiff had ample time if he wished to remove the hay prior to giving delivery of the key. Defendant did not illegally keep the hay. As landlord, he considered he had a perfect right to prevent any person entering or remDving anything from his

property until he was satisfied. The paddock or farm was a very dear one. £80 was paid for it. Considered property of that description dear at five years' rental.

The witnesses were frequently re-called during the continuance of the case. This concluded the case.

His Honour summed up, and read the law on the matter, instancing analogous cases relative to the sale of tickets at Doncaster and Co vent Gardens, England, but the heavy rain sounding on the roof of the Courthouse prevented our reporter from following his Honour's remarks. Ultimately verdict was given for plaintiff for £12 (tlie hay to be removed not later that Monday next by plaintiff), expenses of two witnesses £2 12s each with costs of Court, and one guinea professional fee, amounting in all to about £19. The learned counsel on both sides were more than once upon their legs, and even the defendant came frequently to the rescue, and followed suit.