R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume IX, Issue 2966, 2 August 1888, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

r ;MABTBRTO|^TOTBiM^jJ ' ■.•... (Before : S.; - An inebriatex-was fihed'4s.and cau-,^iii *zte- : : -,'■ Police v T,;Wuh'SrSui]amons lawfully assaulting.;;Geoige i; Evidence went /to show that>the blow-was struck by .ManaeU,-andtheft|||| case was'dianiissed. ; sTuruoi 'summons for,.£lßlßs^ : seven boardersi payinig v =l6Bl' pjypjf had i wife; but no: fainilyi ; ano7Jad||g|i paid'other butcher's. : since ■ meiit,was made' : to' ; per) weefcorfpurteen ■ days' : i menji; ; :B&rdJrfllaihti^ ; lielSndant3^o^bnffl^BMowri!;aß|^P ■ bad 20J) ; fathe?Bfv|praplrty,:j:wi# :.;buiingsgi|p| worth in his (defendant's) name,but;Eederivednobenefit. • .;, Cariiell, "examined,- said hejMioo\ : 'J : §| acrds.'on/deferred paymenti.ihdiwas■';fti§ ywilliug iput for; tlie!money fie;;:^i:g had spent oil it, £22.\ "■;. ftft '\ '' ■ ''ftftit ■ :■ Ordermadeior'payinent .of ,'£lo. per •:-ftK month;'.or'in default .24:daya'-, im-ftft| prisonmeht; first payment to be made on'lstSeptember.-' ' ■'...'..; ftvft' .' •> ■;ft- : :^ ; c'H ' G; W. Schroder v J. B; Harcourt. "fl —Claim £sol6sfor uso ahd'ocoupa-': '"■■■ ft tion of premises in Queen-street, Mas-ftift terton. Mr Pownall for plaintiff, Mr ~ ■ -ft Izard for defendant.; ,\ Mr Pownall r.elated; the cirsp- : -:$& . stances leading up! to.the'presentftft"; action. ■'■'" ■ ;' : ' : :- : '\ v '-^ The defendant, through his solioitpr,' :;-ft admitted that possession had been; ;<C« '. taken from plaintiff. ■':,." ft-ft."'''-'.ft;ft G. W. Schroder deposed that he was ft'ft an insurance agent, residing in Mas- ft-;? i terton. ,Ho remembered signing an ,';: : agreement (produced) giving, over the ■ 'ft lease of the premises in question to >■ , Messrs Harcourt and Co." He banted ftft ! tbe shop over to Mr Harcourt, and'.'vf? . gave him the key. ;; '■■^■t Cross-oxamined ■ by Mr lzard,-He 'f^> , presumed Mr Harcourt had, paid the' rent to Mr Brown, but could not say-/%£ ; of his own knowledge. Had made no J Kf% , enquiries.. . • To Mr Pownall: Mrßrownhadnot ;•:"^ been consulted over the* transfer of ' 'i.%l the lease to Mr Harcourt. • : -- Se-examinedby Mr Izard: He had ; § , not executed a deed of assignment .'•' to M r Harcourt outside the agreement ~:: i ; produced. Had made ; no demaA'a.' ;;' Messrs .Harcourt for rent prioWo. "; '' present claim. '"T:/\v'? : To the Bench; Ho had never -0,1 :M any rent for the premises since helerJy ' : ss ■■;■ His. Worship intimated: that ; would devolve Upon the show that he had-giyen up possession &M of thepremis'es. -" ;,;';•"':/■ "■';". '. ";\\%% "■, For the. defence; Frank:'.:'& '■'; 'fi, • deposed that he was ! . clqrlk- tb.Mess'rs. 'MM Harcourt.& Co." He produced copy of^l'i 1 letter .from-Mr.Harconrt to-Mr -QiySfc : Brown. ■■-;■' •.• , • .'■;■■■ 'H*> : -'¥ _'. "The counsel for;Mr Schroder jected to letters being put in to which ■: ; ?- his client was not a party. . .-"•■• His Worship said he would consider : ft •the letters for what they were worth, ' ' bearing in mind the objection raised. ;' The letter produced showed' that. v '■■■'■ defendants .paid Mr Brown direct" ift for tlie rent to 18th February, and ;: that tlioy were not authorised by the tenant to continue further paynffc Witness, cross-examined by Jlr.'.' ■■'••'■ /: Pownall, said the rent was paid direct to Mr Brown. On, giving' up the promises,' Mr Schroder was not notified. Judgment was given for plaintifjE,for amount claimed, £50165, witlioiir costs, plaintiff not haying given notice ■■ of action prior to bringing it into Court. . : : - . '"■;