RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S OOURT BOXBXTKGH.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VII, Issue 394, 26 September 1874, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S OOURT BOXBXTKGH.

'Tuesday, 22ndSsPTBMBBB. (Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., R.M.)

Body v. Orogan. — No appearance on either side. Case struck out.

Beighton v. Cornish. — The Resident Magistrate said he was now in a position to • give judgment in this case. The plaintiff claims rent for premises acquired by purchase on 19th June 1874, and the right to lease under which defendant holds the premises. The deed conveyed certain property on Cheviotstreet, the properly was actually on the street. .The deed was complete enough. In looking at the mortgage deed the premises there were distinct and different from those on lease. ; The mortgage of the section^ and the buildings on the section, are distinct and separate ; as to looking on the premises mentioned in plaintiff's deed, as being appurtenances to the stone building named in the lease he could not do it j there was no such meaning ever given. Appurtenances could not be stretched to go beyond the land, unless it was a right-of-way or right of-entry. There could be no question of title. The mortgage was over one set of buildings— the deed sold another set ; although there was not the slightest doubt but that the party lending the money supposed they had the premises, yet they had made a mistake, when people 'lent money they Bhould be careful to find out these things. The next question was that of rent, rent by virtue of an agreement with A. M'Pherson ; the lease is such that it lets .the whole of the premises. Is it then right for M'Pherson to split up the premises between the parties ? The insurance which was to be paid by the lessee applies to the whole of the premises, and the stone kullding was ho be finished by 15th April, 1873. Rent waß also given for the whole of the premises. The defendant had a very good excuse in Baying that he did not know to whom the rent was to be paid. M'Pherson splits up the premises, mortgages the section and buildings on it, and . sells the wooden house and lease. The plaintiff not being the owner of the stone building, how can the agreement be fulfilled? The lease could only be transferred to a party in a position to carry out the original agreement. The rent in that agreement was more for the stone building than the old house j it was impossible for the plaintiff to tnforce the rent under this lease, impossible for M'Pherson to assign lease. It was advisable the parties Bhould come to some conclusion about the rent. The mortgage does not affect the wooden property. There had apparently been laches on both sides, the party now owning the wooden property might get a reasonable rent ; £2 12s 6d per week was not reasonable. The reason that the rent was so high in the first instance was that the stone house was to be completed. Non suit entered for the plaintiff. Expenses 6 guineas; ■ professional costs 1 guinea,