LEASE OF PREMISES

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 257, 26 July 1930, Page 17

LEASE OF PREMISES

Firms at Variance Hearing of the case in which non-ful-filment of contracts to lease a portion of premises in Auckland was alleged against the Lawrence and Hanson Electrical Co., Ltd., by Hallenstein Bros., Ltd., was continued before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court yesterday. t Mr. P. B. Cooke, with him Mr. H. J. V. James, appeared for Hallenstein and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. M . H. Cunningham, for defendant. Plaintiff asked the court to order defendant specifically to perform an agreement, which, it was alleged, had been entered into, and to accept a lease and possession of the premises, or alternatively, claimed judgment for £046/9/8 as damages, with costs. Giving evidence for the defence, C. J. Hanson, formerly branch manager of the defendant company at Auckland; said that the rent for the premises in the plaintiff's building was always paid to Midlane Bros., the previous lessees, until the latters’ lease expired. No arrange-

meat was then made about a new lease by witness. One morning he found a copy of a proposed lease on his desk. As he had no power to act in the matter he sent the document on to the Wellington office.

Witness denied having told Fels, manag-ing-director for plaintiff, that it was intended to take a lease for five years. Witness was fully authorised to give notice of intension to quit. Cross-examined by Mr. Cooke, witness denied that he had paid rates, as well as rent, for the premises because it was a condition of a lease with plaintiff. He admitted that lie did not tell anyone that he was not liable for the rent or rates. He was instructed to pay the rents and rates provided the amounts were correct. He believed that, apart from any arrangement, he had to pay the rates on any building he was occupying. Henry Francis Vickery, the New Zealand managing-director of the defendant company, said he did not sign the proposed lease as he considered the rent was too high. Witness said his firm had remained in plaintiff’s building after Midlane’s lease expired because they liked the place, but were nt the time looking out for more suitable premises. The rent had been high from the beginning. ~ In reply to his Honour witness said he was aware that the Auckland branch

was paying £5OO a year rent. He was also aware that it was stipulated when the Auckland branch got the premises that there should be a right of renewal for five years. The court adjourned until this morning.