VIEWED WITH SUSPICION.

Auckland Star, Volume XLV, Issue 167, 15 July 1914, Page 4

VIEWED WITH SUSPICION.

ACTS THAT AFFECT COHTBtACT RIGHTS. -V.V AUOKLLVNID HOSMTtAL LEASE. An interesting point affecting leases held under hospitals and local authorities was brought 'before hU Honor Mr. Justice flosking in the Auckland Supreme Court, when ~Mr. J. C. Martin, onObehatf of the executors off M r . J. R WSliamsua, of KHerslie, the tenants of some grazhv land owned ,by the Auckland JBospilal Board, applied fur a declaratory judgment defining th c rights of thoiessors and lessens of the hosnital reserve ia question. No point arose out of the Auckland Hospitals Reserves Act of 1883,.said Mr. Martin. The Reserves TEndowment Act of 18!) S. however, stated that its prori-s-ioins should sl,pply "in aM leases now or hereulfter granted.' - and it was tlie meaning of those words which was under depute, .Mr, Williamson's lease give tV right of renewal ,f..r 2\ years,.tint rft* to he determined by arbitration. "Under the Act ill question, however, the method to arrive at the rent was djflcrent. i valuer .being appointed by the PuM'k Trustee, who in bhU ease was the lessor. Mr. .Martin pointed out that as prior ta the Act the Btr-olic Trustee fcad, soli leases, some of vvhich contained-thc' right of rcne-wals. while others did not. and ai other leaises were offering for sale at that time, it only applied prospective!.*, and to inchoate leases. Incidentally Hr. Martin-mentioned that tbc.tand.aS originally let, wins mere! v grazing Hand". 'Sow it was valuable suburban, land. Hence the objection to the Hospital assessor fixing the terms of tlie renewal 'of tie lease. .' Mr. (IT. P. Richmond, for -tile defendants, said that the Hospital Board came Juiforc the Board in order to conserve public tights. According to tliegramniitical interpretation of ifhe words of the statute tli c Act a.plied to ail Jcases, and jit was substantially a repeal of,.the 1883 j Act. The test was. was it conceivable l that the Board could refuse to grant a I man a renewal under the terpis pi fie 1 Act ? 1f it could not. tenants should not j have the right to pick and cboose. I His Honor ipointed out the difficulty that woiilld arise in arw where annul j had erected valuable Buildings on the land, but Mr. Richmond contended that the question of hardship should no' enter into the case. (His Honor: But some very valuaWe buildings are held tinder leases of ttis kind, d think it is a circumstance of the ea.se if the construction placed on the statute destroys valuable rights. Mr. Richmond argued that if the Act was not Tetronpect».-e, the effect woald .be that the very 'leases -which it irU framed to Telicve would get no benefit. His Honor: One allwavs approaches an •Act which interferes with existing rigfcte undeT contracts with a- good dcat of sns-pk-ion. and one lo.'ks to see if there are any means, consistent with (" preventing the Legislature doing an mjustice. Tlie judge reserved his ruling.. \