RENT TOO HIGH

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 257, 26 July 1930, Page 15

RENT TOO HIGH

Unlucky Business Venture HATTER IN DIFFICULTIES An agreement for a five-years’ lease of a shop in Bond Street, at a weekly rental of from £5/10/- to £6/10/- was given as the principal cause of his failure by a mercer whose creditors were summoned to a meeting yesterday. _ The bankrupt was John Conwell, mercer and hatter, of 57 Manners Street. The Acting-Official-Assignee, Mr. S. J. Dudson, presided, and there were also present* Bankrupt and Ins solicitor, Air. R. R. Scott, and Mr. P. Schneideman, for whom Mr. P. Keesing appeared. As only one creditor was present the meeting lapsed. The amount owing to unsecured creditors was shown as £lB4/18/9, and the assets totalled £9/19/5, leaving a deficiency of £174/19/4. The principal creditor was Phillip Schneideman, whose claim was for £179/8/-. Bankrupt’s Statement. Bankrupt, in his sworn statement, explained that he had saved nearly £2OO in January, 1929, for the purpose of starting a business as a hat renovator, hatter, and mercer. On February 21, 1929, he signed a paper which he subsequently discovered was an agreement to take a lease from Phillip Schneideman of a shop in Bond Street for five years at a rental commencing at £5/10/- a week, and rising to £6/10/-. When signing the paper, he thought the question of a lease would be brought up later, and that he had a six-months trial of the shop. It was represented by Phillip Schjieidejnan that a good business could be done in the shop in bankrupt s line, but this was impossible owing, to Bond Street being a side street. Business was bad all the time he was in the shop, and he lost about £3/10/- a week. A fewweeks after taking possession, bankrupt was approached by a solicitor acting for Phillip Schneideman, who presented a lease for signature, but bankrupt told him he had never signed any lease. He saw Schneideman about the matter, and was informed that he was bound for five years. Subsequently he informed Schniedeman several times that he was losing all the time, with no prospect of recovering, and finally arranged with him to vacate the shop, which he did on June 8, 1929. He paid rent for the shop up to June 1, 1929. On May 19, 1930, Schneideman obtained a judgment against bankrupt for a claim under the agreement for the lease of the shop, and this judgment was for the rent of the shop for a period that he did not occupy the shop. This was the primary reason for his bankruptcy. “Breach of Agreement.

Mr. Keesing stated that it was incorrect for bankrupt to say that Mr. Schneideman’s claim was for rent for a time during which he had not occupied the shop. The claim was for breach of agreement, and judgment had been given for Schneideman in the court. Mr. Scott said that the measure of the damages had been fixed on the rentals. Mr. Keesing said that bankrupt, in his statement, had “thrown mud” at Schneideman. endeavouring to make out that Schneideman was making a charge for rent for a period during which bankrupt had not occupied the shop. His reference to Bond Street being a side street had simply been made to attempt to damage Mr. Schneideman, who had considerable interests in that street. Mr. Scott maintained that Mf. Schneideman’s contention that his claim was for damages for breach of agreement was merely a quibble. Mr. Dudson said that by giving up the lease bankrupt had certainly avoided getting further into debt. Mr. Keesing said that if bankrupt had approached his landlord in a proper manner things might have been very different.

At the request of Mr. Keesing, it was .decided that bankrupt should produce a statement showing his transactions from the time he had commenced in business in Bond Street until the date of the bankruptcy. . . “Personal Quarrel.”

Mr. Scott said that the whole proceedings were against the spirit of the Bankruptcy Act. and were simply in the vindictive spirit which had been shown all through. The bankruptcy was nothing more than a quarrel between two persons.

Mr. Keesing said that the court had adjudicated Conwell a bankrupt. The time to defend was when the matter was before the court. The judge had remarked that bankrupt had deserved all he got, as he was attempting to break an agreement he had entered into. “ Mr. Scott said that when Conwell left the shop in Bond Street he was of the opinion that all he owed Schneideman was one week’s rent. Schneideman had taken advantage of his legal rights to hold bankrupt strictly to the letter of the agreement. ' The Acting-Official Assignee intimated that he would call another meeting, if necessary, after bankrupt’s statement had been received.