R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2868, 9 April 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MABTERTON,-MONDAY. (Before S. Yon Stumek, R.M) There was no criminal business. ' Civil Cases, W. Prangnell v. \V. H. Robins.— Claim £2 ss, for shingles supplied. No appearance of defendant. • Judgment for plaintiff, with costs, 6s. R. Hare v. Edward Nay lor.—Claim £4 lis Bd, being book debt in the estate of R. Hare. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount and 7s costs. R. Hare v. Samuel Naylor.—Claim, 14s 2d, being book debt in the estate of K. Hare, Judgment for plaintiff with 7s costs. A Land Case.

John Jepson v John Savage, claim £25 for one year's rent of 96 acres of land in Whareama district, Mr Bunny for plaintiff, Mr Pownall for defendant, For the defence, it was maintained that there was no tenancy, and that possession had not been given. Again, that plaintiff had ended any tenancy which might have existed by giving defendant notice to quit, and, further, that the lease had been rendered void by plaintiffs not carrying out the condition which stipulated that a house should be built on the property.

Mr Bunny, in opening the case, said that the defendant had been in possession of the property from March, 1887, to February, 1888—nearly a year—and had paid no rent, Moreover, the agreement to lease contained no provision as regarded the erection of a house.

The plaintiff, John Jepson, gave evidence as to the agreement to lease, produced in Court, being drawn up on Bth March, 1887, but not by a lawyer, and as to the defendant entering into possession on next day. The rent was not being paid, so he on 2nd November gave defendant notice to quit. The latter said lie had no intention of leaving the land,

To Mr Pownall: The lease was dated to commence from 24th May, but defendant was allowed to go on the property at once, to give him a chance of paying the £25 rent in advance. He also agreed to build a house if defendant would pay him for it. The latter was liviug in a house already there, but it was too small and insufficient. Defendant stated in evidence that when the agreement was made out in March, 1887, it was provided that the tenancy should begin on the 24th of May, so that in the interval, the plaintiff should build a cottage on the land. This cottage was never built, and in consequence he obtained a whare from Dillon, near the property, in which he remained till February last, when he moved to Te Ore Ore. He denied ever having entered into possession of the 96 acres. Counsel for the plaintiff addressed the Court at length in support of his client's olaim. Fe represented that the agreement made was very clear and very fair. There was no condition in it that plaintiff should get' a house, although it was implied that if he built a house himself, he would, at the termination of the tenancy, be compensated for that and other improvements,

Mr von Sturmer,in giving judgment, said that the absence from the agreement of a proper description of the property, the numbers of the sections being blank, and tho definition vague, rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the Court, that possession should have been distinctly given. There had, however, been no clear proof that possession had been given or that occupation had taken place. Moreover, the evidence showed that plaintiff took possession of the land to do some fenc' ing prior, to giying the defendant notice to quit. The Court, therefore, must hold the plaintiff nonsuited, without costs, Mr Bunny gave notice of appeal.