Image TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage TileImage Tile
Image size: 7680x10240 Scale: 35% - PanoJS3
Page overview thumbnail

Article text

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS.
Tubsday, October 30.
[Before Hit Honor the Chief Justice (Sir R. D.
Hanson) and Juries.]
Jttrv Tita*.
Henry Watson, of North Adelaide, chemist,
was excused from attendance on the Jury, being
overage.
DONALDSON AKD OTHERS V. HET5E AM) OTHERS.
Mr. Way, Q.C., and Mr. Belt for plaintiffs;
Mr. Stow, Q.C.,?or defendants.
Ejectment.
The plaintiffs claimed possession of the Com
mercial Hotel, Two Wells, and mesne profits to
the amount of £66. The property wai under
the Real Property Act. The certificate of title
was in the name of Thos. Bartlett, who inert
gaged the property to Mr. Jaa. Walsh, which
mortgage on the death of the mortgagor was
transferred to Messrs. Luxmoore and Seberts.
Mr. Bartlett subsequently transferred to Mr.
Donaldson, who leased the property for two
years and five months from January 2, 1872, to
Mr. Catchlove and Mn-. Hausaen, and the defen
dant was a tenant of the lessees.
Mr. Way, in opening the case, observed that
in ejectment it was necessary to join in the writ '
all parties supposed to have any claim to the
land in question, and the point at the trial was
whether the claimant*, or which of them, '
were entitled, and whether to the whole,
or what part of the property. (Common Law
Procedure Act, section 135.) The mortgagees
had therefore been joined as plaintiff)*, but the
property being under the Real Property Act, he
(Mr. Way) thought the registered holder of the
legal estate would be the proper person to main
tain ejectment, not the mortgagee. However
that might be, the lease to Mr. Catchlove and
Mrs. Haussen expired on June 2 last, and the
landlord was therefore clearly entitled to posses
sion, for which a demand had been made upon
the defendant fleyne, who then occupied the
premised.
The certificate of title was then put in.
Mr. Way proposed to put in a certified copy
of the transfer to the plaintiff Donaldson.
Mr. Stow objected that it could not be re
ceived an evidence.
Mr. Way said he relied on section 104 of the
Real Property Act.
His Honor overruled tbe objection.
Mr. Way then call*!
James Donaldson, of Two Wells, farmer, who
proved the service of the notice to quit upon the
defendant Heyne.
By Mr. Stow— Had agreed to sell tbe property
to Mr. Catchlove and Mrs. Hauisen. There
was an agreement to that effect, and also
a provision for right of purchase in the lease.
Mr. Way objected that the agreement was
not evidence, being an unregistered document.
His Honor said he should admit it as it was
signed by the plaintiff ; but he understood it
had no important bearing upon the case.
Mr. Stow submitted that the plaintiffs had not
shown the existence of the relationship of land
lord and tenant and the daUrmination of the
tenancy, and therefor* they could not recover
mefne profits.
Mr. Way said the endorsement of the lease on
the certificate of title was sufficient evidence
under section 38 of the Real Property Act.
The Chief Justice— Does the endorsement
mention the amount of rent payable under the
lease?
Mr. Way— No; but I have no objection to put
in the lease itself.
The lease was put in accordingly, and the
clause relating to the right of purchaie read.
Cross-examination of plaintiff continued— The
1 interest under the mortgage «u the ws« at the.
rent peyaMe under the lease. Had never re
ctiveaanoticeof as intention to cosaplete the
purchase under the right reserved a the lease.
Had refused to complete a sale.
Re-examined— Did m because the lessees did
not comply with the torus of their lease,
Mr. Stow imagined bis learned friend would
intimate for whom be wished tbe verdict,
whether for Mr. Donaldson or the mortgagees.
Bis Honor said, as he read the Real Property
Act. the verdict, if any, would be for Mr.
Donaldson, who was the registered proprietor.
Mr. Way agreed.
Mr. Stow said he proposed to show that there
was a notice served on the plaintiff, Mr. Donald*
son, of an intention to complete the purchase of
the property under the powers of tbe lease.
The deftndants, Mr. Catchlove and Mrs.
Haueeen, were therefore in possession under a
right which could not take effect until after
the determination of the tenancy, and the notice
to quit served on Mr. Catchlove's and Mrs.
Haussen's tenant was sot notice to them.
His Honor said he must hold that the notice
as to completion of purchase did not affect th»
cue, as the notice to quit served on Mr. Heyne
was notice to the lessees, Mr. Catchlove and Mrs.
BaasieB.
Mr. Stow said he only wished formally to
tender the evidence. Tben he would submit
that Mr. Catchlove and Mrs. Hanraen were the
registered proprietors under the lease containing
a right of purchase, and the plaintiffs had not
made out such a case as came within section
124 of the Real Property Act That section
amounted to a code determining in what oases
ejectment under the Act might be maintained.
His Honor directed the Jury to find a verdict
for the plaintiff.
Verdict for the plaintiff, including £66 for
messe profits.
CAEV08SO V. KSOBBB.
Mr. Way, Q.C., for the plaintiff; Mr. Stow,
Q.C., for the defendant.
Ejectment.
The plaintiff claimed possession of certain
land at Kadina. The properly was under tbe
Real Property Act, and a certificate of title had
been issued to the plaintiff.
The notice to quit having been proved,
Mr. Stow said that the defence was that tbe
plaintiff claimed under a transfer from a Mr.
Buckett, but the defendant alleged that at the
time of the transfer he was in possession of the
land, under a lease from Mr. Buckett. The
point, however, had been before the Full Court
m the case of Buckett v. Knobbe, and the
judgment had been advene to the defendant
Mr. Way— I think that the fact was that Mr.
Knobbe entered into possession under a void
lease.
Mr. Stow— But there was a payment of rent
by the defendant after the determination of the
term.
His Honor said he was bound by the decided
cases, and must reject the evidence proposed to
be offered.
The Jury, by direction, found a verdict for the
plaintiff.
STEFHBK8 T. POPE ABD OTHBKS.
Mr. Stow, Q.C., for the plaintiff. The defen
dants were unrepresented.
This was a case set down for the assessment of
damages. The defendants had agreed with the
plaintiff that if he would manage a farm at the
Broughton for them for one year they would at
the expiration of that time take out a square
mile of land for him, and supply him for 12
months with seed wheat and stock. There was
also a subsequent agreement by which the
plaintiff was to pay one-fifth of the working ex*
peoses of the Broughton Farm, and also to
manage it, and in return waa to receive one-fifth
of tbe crop.
Mr. Stow, by permission, amended the dedans
tion by striking out the count an to the taking
out of land for the plaintiff's benefit He also
mentioned that judgment bad been signed for
£100 for work and labour done.
The plaintiff having given evidence as to the
value of one-fifth of the crop, tLe Jury, under
direction, found a verdict for tLe plaintiff for
£144, in addition to the amount for which judg
ment had already been entered.
LAKQCAKS V. LANG PAKE.
Mr. Sheridan for the petitioner; the respon
dent did not appear.
This was a petition by the husband for dis
solution of marriage on the ground of adultery.
The petition set out that the petitioner was
married to the respondent (then Clara Fowler)
at tbe Roman Catholic Church, Port Adelaide,
on April 16, 1665; that the patties lived together
as man and wife till the nonth of April, 1870,
when the respondent left ber home without any
just cause acd became a common prostitute.
Affidavits were read in support of the petition,
and a certified copy of the marriage certificate
produced.
Mr. James Keddaway, of Adelaide, cab-driver,
deposed that he had known the respondent for
the last four years as a woman of ill-fame, Mr.
Jas. McDonald testified to the same effect, and
a police-constable stated that the respondent
bad been convicted at the Police Court of being
a prostitute.
His Honor said he would report to the Full
Court that the allegations of the petition had
been proved.
This concluded the list for the day. and the
Court therefore adjourned shortly before 1
o'clock till the next morning, at 10. The oases
for trial are Paull v. Gflberteon and Mayor v.
Ellis.
$