CLAIM FOR RENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LVII, Issue 245, 15 October 1926, Page 9

CLAIM FOR RENT.

CLERK GIVES RECEIPTS. EMPLOYER HELD RESPONSIBLE. Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., yesterday delivered a reserved judgment in the case I of R. Jaffe (Mr. J. Hogben), and W. H. , Alexander (Mr. L. K. Munro). The plaintiff, said Mr. Cutten, in this < case claims £163 balance of rent alleged to be due by the defendant. By an agreement made on December 1, 1920, , the plaintiff agreed to lease the premises, which subsequently came into the possession of the defendant, for a term of years at a rental of £3 per week up to j July 25, 1923, and thereafter at a rental of £4 a week. The defendant did not |, pay the £4 per week, but continued to I pay £3 per week. The claim now made is for the balance of rent the plaintiff claims he is entitled to under the agree- j ment to lease. An employee of the plaintiff received the rent from the defendant and after July 25, 1923, accepted the £3 per week, giving clear receipts for payments of rent made at this rate up to April 22, 1926, on which date a receipt was given for rent to March 30, 192 G. Thereafter receipts were given by the plaintiff for rent on account. The defendant claims that the receipts given to him are a complete discharge to him of any further liability for rent. The plaintiff says that there was an understanding that he was to be paid I this balance of rent, but this is denied by the defendant, and it is inconsistent with the regular giving of clear receipts. The contention put forward by the plaintiff that his clerk had no authority to give these receipts cannot be given any weight. The receipts were given extending over a period of years and this is so notwithstanding that the plaintiff admits that he discussed the matter with the defendant about the time he became entitled under the agreement to the increased rent. If he did, and any such stipulation as the Act requires was made, surely the plaintiff would be in a position to give some better evidence of it and also would have seen that receipts inconsistent with such a stipulation were not given to the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant.