LEASE IN DISPUTE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 173, 24 July 1930, Page 20

LEASE IN DISPUTE.

VERBAL AGREEMENT ALLEGED

BUSINESS PREMISES IN AUCKIiAND.

"ONLY A MONTHLY TENANT."

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The non-fulfilment of a contract to lease a portion of premises in Auckland was alleged against , the Lawrence and Hanson Electrical Company, Ltd., by Hallenstein Brothers, Ltd., in an action heard by Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day. Mr. P. B. Cooke, with him Mi*. H. J. V. James, appeared for Hallenstein Brothers, and Mr. A. K.C., with him Mr. W. H. Cunningham, for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that by a verbal agreement on October 22, 1926, the defendant agreed to take from the plaintiff a lease of the ground floor and basement of the plaintiff's building at 32, Lome, Street, Auckland, for a term of five years from January 1, 1927, at a rent of £500 a year, plus rates, and otherwise on the same terms and.conditions as were contained or implied in an existing agreement to' lease the same premises, dated January 18, 1922, made between the plaintiff, as lessor, and. Midlane Brothers (N.Z.), Limited, as lessee.

The defendant remained in possession of the premises' from January 1, 1927, until April 30, 1028, and during - that time paid to the plaintiff- £746 7/11 for rent and rates. ,

On April 30, 1928, defendant vacated the premises, and shortly before that date refused to perform the agreement, and had continued to do so, as a result of Avhich the plaintiff had suffered damage. It was also alleged that subsequently a written agreement was entered into by the defendant, after the defendant had made certain amendments; to which the plaintiff agreed. The plaintiff asked the Court, to order the defendant specifically to perform the agreement referred to, and to accept a lease and possession of the premises, and alternatively claimed judgment for £891 4/8 as damages; with costs.

The statement' of defence denied that the defendant had entered into any.euch agreement as mentioned in the statement of claim, and alleged that any possession or occupation the defendant might be proved to have had of the premises was that of a monthly tenant. The defendant admitted paying £746 7/11 to the plaintiff for occupation of the premises as a monthly tenant, and not otherwise, It-was also claimed by the defendant that the tenancy of the premises wao properly terminated by notice in writing. Evidence for plaintiff was given by Bert Alexander Tomlineon, of Nelson, formerly Wellington manager for Hallenstein Brothers, and Willie Fels, managing director of Hallenstein- Bros. . The hearing was adjourned.