INTERESTING TO LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 3068, 15 March 1892, Page 2

INTERESTING TO LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.

» ■ ■ Thk only case of any interest to the public, that was heard at the Cambridge Court, on Friday last (before Capt. Jackson, R.M.), Wi<s J. M. Hally v. A. Wilkinson, claim £3 os for rent. Mr Jas. Hally appeared for plaintiff; defendant conducted his own case. Defendant had paid £2 into Court, that being all he considered he owed. Mr Jas. Hally said th« claim was for two weeks' occupancy and a month's rent in lieu of notice, the latter being the amounts allowed, by law. He then quoted the " Property Law Consolidation Act 1883," " Amendment Act 1885" of which subsection 6 of Sectinn 64 is as follows. — " Any tenancy not exceeding one year may be created by agreement in writing or by parole (word of mouth); and if there be a tenancy nnd no such agreement as to its duration, it shall be deemed and held to be I a tenancy determinate by one month's notice_ in writing." In this case no notice in writing had been given t:> terminate the tenancy, eo h's client could legally have claimed up to the present time, but he had contented himself with demanding only one month in lien of notice. Similar cases had been tried in the various Courts throughout the colony, his contention, being upheld; and Mr Smith (<ve presume tbo late Auckland R.M. Ed.) had distinctly ruled in favour of the section he had quoted, that a. month's notice in writing was necessary to terminate a tenancy of less than one year, if there was no agreement as to its duration. Plaintiff deposed he let a house and shop to defendant on March 26th, 1891, at 10s per week, and the key was returned to htm on the following 6th of April. Defendant and his father gave verbal notice that they should leave the premises, a few days after they had taken possession. They had nut given any notice in writing. Replying tj plaintiff: You made an offer of 30s in settlement, sometime after giving up the key. At that time I claimed £2 in full settlement. At the time your father gave up the key he did not make any arrangement that I remember. I subsequently rendered you an account for the amount due, £2, on June Ist. At that time I did not know my rights. You said you would most likely be a permanent tenant. By the Court: There was a verbal agreement that a month's notice should be given. James Wilkinson (the father of defendant) deposed : The house did not suit us, and I saw Mr Hally the following morning after we went in, and told him wo were going out. He said he would want some compensation, to which we did not object. Wβ had two or three interviews after that. Hβ asked £2 in full discharge, and my son offered ooi. Eventually I offered him tho key, and agreed to pay the £2. He said "all right," or words to that effect, and took the key. We were only in the house two nights and one day. The bill in court for £2 was received on June Ist. By Mr Jas. Hally : I will swear I never asked the plaintiff to let us off for 30s after the key was given up. Plaintiff said ho lost money bv the Maoris being put out of the house. He said they were paying 10s per week. Defendant deposed that he had declined to tako the house for any specified term, but he subsequently agreed to pay 10a per week. Hβ had possession a fortnight, as plaintiff refused to take the kay. He tendered plaintiff 30s before the first week's tenancy was completed, but he refused to take anything less than £2. A few days after his father made an agreement to pay plaintiff £2. I never made any agreement with him. On several occasions he has asked me for the £2. Before proceedings were taken, I tendered £2 to plaintiff's solicitor, but he refused it, and wanted £3 5s and 10s for his fee. Plaintiff refused to tike the key three or four times after we went out of the house, in Hewitt's hotel. Plaintiff's solicitor contended that the law laid down a certain way that the tenancy should be terminated; consequently he expected judgment in his favour. If the defendant had paid the £2 when demanded, all would have been settled, but they dallied so long, and in the meantime plaintiff found he could legally charge more; hence the action for the greater amount. Captain Jackson said he thought this case should be settled by equity as well as law. Plaintiff had agreed to accept £2 in full discharge, and defendants were to blame for having kept him so long without the money ; but because they had done so he did not think it should entitle plaintiff to ignore that agreement, and avail himself ot the statute quoted. Hβ then gave judgment for the amount paid into Dourt; consequently plaintiff had to pay the hearing fee?.