" TIED HOUSES."

Waikato Argus, Volume IV, Issue 297, 4 June 1898, Page 2

" TIED HOUSES."

(BY TELEGRAI'II—PRESS ASSOCIATION). Wellington, Thursday. An important question, re " tied" houses, has been decided in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice. •Hff. G. Ryland, licensee of the Te Aro Hotel, sued his landlady, Elizabeth F. Crawford, of Palmerston North, to have set aside a covenant in the lease, binding him to take beer brewed by one McCarthy, who was also joined as defendant at the time the action was begun. A conviction was on record against Ryland for a breach of the licensing laws by Sunday trading ; but an appeal since made was successful, and the conviction was quashed. Sir R. Stout, who appeared on behalf of Ryland, now argued that the covenant was invalid because his client had nob had notice of it, and, not having been, registered, it did not give McCarthy any interest in the land. It an implied or collateral agreement was relied on, such agieements were abolished by statute. They were entitled at all events to have the covenaut struck out of the lease, aud if the defendants relied upon some collateral agreement, then he must rely upon it. He would not rely upon the covenant in the tease, as under the Land Transfer Act there could be no such agreement binding on land. Mr Ollivier, who appeared for the defendant McCarthy, argued that the licensee could not repudiate a burden unless he also repudiated a benefit under his lease, and he also submitted that they were entitled to treat his action- in bringing the present proceedings as an election to repudiate his lease, as claimed by Miss Crawford. His Honor gave judgmont, holding, in effect, that the law enacted that any provision in recard to binding a house to take supplies of beer is void, and that any document in which such a provision is inserted is to be read as if it did not appear in it. There might be, His Honor said, some kind of relief open to the defendant by the way of a couuter claim or special action, but on that point he would express no opinion. He ruled that the defendant was entitled to the relief asked for and that the instrument in question was to be rectified by the omission of the express covenant agreed to: Costs were allowed on the lowest scale.