COURT OF APPEAL

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 175, 12 April 1923, Page 11

COURT OF APPEAL

INTERPRETATION'OF A LEASE. The interpretation of a lease occupied the attention of tho Court of Appeal on Tuesday. The case was an appeal by the East Coast Commissioner of Crown Lands, from a decision of His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman, as to tho construction of a certain clause in a lease of a block of land from tho commissioner to the respondents, Joseph Burton Kells, and William Turnbull, of Gisborne, sheep-farmers. The question at issue was whether at tho termination of the lease, which was for a term of 21 years, the lessees were entitled to a further lease of 21 years, providing for compensation for improvements made by them from the commencement of the term of the original lease, or whether the right to compensation for improvement came to an end at the expiration of the existing lease. Mr. Justice Chapman had held that tho lessees were entitled to receive compensation at the end of the renewed lease for all improvements effected since the commencement of tho original lease, and the appeal was from this decision.

Their Honours reserved decision. Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. E. P. Bunny, appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. M. Myers, K.C., with him Mr. Buxton, for tho respondents. AN INVOLVED CASE. The Court of Appeal yesterday heard the case of AV. Bolus and Co. (London) v. Inglis Bros.. Ltd. (AA’fillington), an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Hosking. It appeared that, while admitting their liability for payment of the amount involved in the original claim, £1752 2s. 4d., respondents had been asked to pay £765 of the total claim to the manufacturers concerned (tho Sopwith Engineering Co., Ltd.), as well as to tho appellants. Mr. Justice Hosking had nonsuited the appellants on,, the claim for £765, but gave judgment for interest on the balance of tho claim, in addition to the £999 12s. , 4d. paid into Court. Both | companies were in liauidatiqn, and tno ■ liquidators were taking action. The ‘ appeal by tli£> AAL Bolus Company and | Alfred Hartley was in respect of the , £765 upon which'they had been nonsuited by Mr. Justico Hosking. i Mr. A. Gray, K.C. (with him Mr. von Ha.ast), appeared for appellants, and Mr. M. Myers, K.C. (with him Mr. H. F. O’Leary), appeared for respondents. The Court, consisting of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Salmond, and Mr. Justice Herdman, reserved decision after hearing legal arugment..