WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 661, 21 May 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Eriday, Mat 20. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) ILLEGAL occupation. Lloyd v. Ereeth.—This was. an action brought to obtain possession of a business site in Kennedy street, alleged to have been illegally jumped by the defendant. Mr Home appeared for the complainant and Mr Pitt for the defendant. William Lloyd, sworn, stated tbat he received a notice dated January 31, 1870, from Freetb and Grreig, on the 2nd Eebruary, about 2 p.m. Previous to that on the 12th January, Mr Freeth had entered into an arrangement with him respecting renting a portion of the section for the purpose of stacking timber. The agreement was made in complainant's office. Mr Whitefoord occupied the office and section prior to witness and he recollected the former quitting it. He received document produced from Mr Kvnnersley appointing him as wharfinger. Witness had a conversation with Mr Whitefoord respecting the property, and in consequence of that he went to Mr Harris, sub-trea-surer, and after having seen him, and in consequence of what transpired he received t!ie key from Mr Whitefoord, and had since occupied the premises to the present. He first made application for a business license about the middle of July, 1869. About seven or eight days lapsed before he made a second application, and he saw Mr Harris on that occasion. The telegram produced from Mr Cassius confirmed his purchase. Mr Whitefoord was in possession about October, 1868. Cross-examined. He agreed with Mr Leslie and completed the purchase about July Bth, 1869. He commenced to use the office as a wharfinger's office about the middle of October, 1868. He never enquired about title from October, 1868 till July, 1869. Francis Harris stated that he knew complainant. He did not positively recollect Mr Whitefoord being in occupation of the premises now used as a wharfinger's office. He recollected Mr Lloyd coming to him about a business license. The floods had washed away the office previously used by the wharfinger and Mr Lloyd said as he had no office and had to supply one, he thought the Government should furnish him with a business license in place of his charging rent. Witness then spoke to the representative of the Government, and that point was agreed upon that Mr Lloyd was to have a business license as against rent. He told Mr Lloyd that he might get the license and he believed he also told Mr Whitefoord that it was agreed that he should have the license free.

William Lloyd recalled: He put Abernethy in possession of a cottage at the rear of the office on January 29th, 1869.

W. A. Abernethy stated that he resided on the section in dispute, and had been put in possession by Mr Lloyd. He had paid rent to Mr Lloyd. He had not received any written notice from Messrs Freeth and Greig. John Leslie, agent of Bank of New Zealand, stated that he had acted as agent for Cassius and Comiskey. He sold the section and premises to Mr Lloyd for £25. Payment was to have been in ten days. Payment had not been made. Mr Lloyd was in possession of the section at the time and had remained in possession ever since.

Benjamin Oxner recollected a cargo of timber in January consigned to Messrs Freeth and Greig. He was employed unloading the vessel. He knew the section ocecupied by Mr Lloyd. No timber was put on the section till after the vessel waa discharged.

John Munro gave evidence as to an application from Mr Lloyd for £25 to complete the purchase of a section in Kennedy-street. He did not entertain the matter in consequence of Mr Freeth having jumped the section. Mr Pitt applied for a nonsuit on the ground that complainant's business license, dated Febuary 2nd could not stand against that held by the defendant, dated, January 31st; The Warden stated that the question of complainant's purchase from Cassius and Comiskey had nothing to do with the matter. The only question for him to decide was as to who had the superior right to hold the section by virtue of a business license, and there could be no doubt in his mind as to the license dated January 31st held by the defendant entitling him to occupy. There was only one point that might have been raised, and that was whether defendant held any other section under that license, but no evidence had been brought to show any thing of the sort. Mr Home begged to call his Worship's attention to the clause in the Goldfields Act providing that fine may be substituted for forfeiture. The Warden had considered that point but the long time that had elapsed before complainant had taken out a license stood in the way of his applying the clause to the present case. There could be no doubt that plaintiff had made application to the Government respecting a business license which was to have been granted in lieu of rent, but in that court he must regard the Provincial Government in the same light as any private individual who by neglect or omission failed to comply with the necessary form to render an occupation legal. The complainant would be nonsuited with costs.