SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14909, 6 March 1914, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

In tho Supremo Court ycstcruay, beforo his Honour Mr Justice Denniston, an interesting case was heard in which Benjamin Perry claimed from Poter Williams the sum of £102, being £52 agreed to be paid on tho determination of tho tenancy of the lease of a building known as Tattersail's Stables, and £50, portion of improvements effected during the tenancy. Mr Leo appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Wright, instructed uy Messrs Onglev and Bulleid for defendant.

'The statement of claim sot out that defendant, by a deed of lease dated February 10th, 1911, let to j. ..intiff certain ouildings and a yard at Oamaru for a term of two Tears commencing on November 14th. 1910, with a right of renewal as mentioned in the deed. Defendant, by this deed, reserved the right at all" times to determine the tenancy by one month's notice, and agreed that if the tenancy should lie so determined ho would pay to the plaintiff the _urn of £52, and also ono half, but not exceeding £50, of the amount expended by the plaintiff for alterations done on tho promises by plaintiff. On October 2nd, 1912, the defendant, by deed, agreed to allow the plaintiff a further tenancy for ono year until November llth, 1913, at a weekly of £1 on the samo terms and conditions as wore contained in the deed of lease, and plaintiff accepted the renewed tenancy. On August 19th, 1913. defendant gave plaintiff ono mouth's notice in writing determining the tenancy, and plaintiff gavo up tho premises accordingly beforo the expiration of tho said notice. Previous to October 2nd, 1912, plaintiff had expended the sum of £ICO 17s "d. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the sum of £52, the amount agreed to be paid on the determination of the tenancy, and £50, being portion of tho amount expended and agreed to be paid by the defendant.

.Ir Wright said that tlio question on law wns .-bother, under the second l_.se, tho defendant .as entitled to pay compensation for improvements. Tho first lease- was for two years, with provision for its termination by a month'- notice .nt any time, without cause, on condition that Perry paid Williams £52 compensation, equivalent to one year's rent, find half, but not moro than £50, of the value of improvements. There was also provision giving the right for fivo year.' extension, at a higher rental, hut Williams, finding himself unable to renew at the higher rental, obtained a new lease ou the same terms for ono year.

Mr Wright .said ho would admit the tenancy had beeu terminated without cause, but Perry maintained that all matters had been settled for £1.. Ho was quite prepared to admit tho liability for £32 if he could not prove this compromise , but ho maintained tlir.t by the new lease there was no liability for compensation for improvement, offo-j. cd during the first term.

In reply to a question by his Honour, Mr Leo said that tho premises were hotel property in a no-licenso district. Every threo years under the local option poll there was a chanco of license being carried, and landlords, therefore, reserved tho right to cancel the leases of such properties, and were glad to pay the tenant compensation m order to havo the chance of letting at a much higher rental. Evidence "was given by Benjamin Perry, hotelkeeper, of Christchurch, ..illiani Fisher Mcllroy, his clerk, and by Frederick William Ongley, solicitor for Perry at Oamaru. Mr Leo said that Williams, after ho got notice to quit, conferred with his solicitors to ascertain his legal position. As a result of their advice ho went to Christ-church to set up a claim for £102 against Perry. Ho also considcre_ that tho £102 would not include the g_£_ttii)£.s and shelves on the premises. Ho thought ho had the right to removo these. Williams tokl Perry that he claimed tho amount under the lease, and that the cost of the fittings came to about £35. Theso articles wero discussed, and Perry offered him £15 for them. Williams had never discussed the claim of £_02 with Perry which he had set up, but Perry denied all liability in respect of that claim. Williams gavo evidence on these lines. . His Honour said ho was inclined to regard the two leases as a blending, inasmuch as tho second had been executed during the currency of the first. Mr Wright and Mr Lee addressed tho Court. His Honour said that setting aside the law, the plaintiff was suing on an agreement giving him indisputable right to £52, independent of any question of valuation; a. plain and obvious agreement to pay a certain sum in the event of certain notice. That point was made by tho statement that the right of commutation or compromise enabled one of the parties, for £15, to closo the bargain without any consideration at all. He had already dealt with that subject in tho case of Cresswell, and he could only repeat it. In the present case he did not think there had been a bona fido claim and a bona fide refusal. One party weqt with advice that his claim was good. If there had been an agreement by Perry to pay something over the £52 for the whole amount, it would have been a different matter. Tho law on tho subject was peculiar. Tho payment of a small sum for a larger sum was consideration with some other definite consideration. It would have to be a very strong case to convince him that Williams had agreed with Perry to take £15 for his indisputable claim. It rested with the person sotting up a compromise to prove *-t, and he was not satisfied that it had been proved. It was trying to establish in principles of law an obviously unjust claim for Perry to insist that he had bought for £15 an indisputable right to £52. Defendant had failed to satisfy him that he was entitled to rely at law on what would be a very grossly unjust bargain.

Judgment was given for Williams for £52 on the facts. Regarding the law, his Honour said that although ho was inclined to adhere to his first view of tho construction of the document, ho would reserve judgment.