CONDITIONS OF A LEASE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17286, 29 September 1916, Page 3

CONDITIONS OF A LEASE.

CLAIM FOR PAINTING AND REPAIRS. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF ' FOR £lO. At the Mugislrate’s Court yofiterJaj, brforo iUr B. W. Bishop, S.M.y “Dr Thackor (Mr "VVriglit) claimed £44 Os lOd from Sharpe Bros. (Mr M. Donnelly) for painting and repairs of buildings under the conditions of a lease taken by the defendants from the plaintiff. '■ Mr Donnelly,, said that Sharpe Bros were cordial manufacturers in a large tvay, and had had a man m charge of the business, but, ho had no authority to sign for repairs or painting, and the agreement made by. Mr Sharpe with Dr Thacker was that the rent of the new buildings was to be bailed on.the cost of the buildings, with nothing else. Tho agreement had also provided for insurance and rates and taxes, and Dr Thacker had made a claim for £1(X) in respect of them, but bad waivod his claim. Henry Cotferill, solicitor, gave evidence that in 1907 he was approached by Dr Thacker or his brother, Mr J. R. Thacker, and Mr Brittell, manager to Sharpe Bros. In consequence of that a building was erected, and an agreement for flic lease was drawn up and signed by Brittell on behalf of Sharpe Bros. Previously he had cabled to Sharpe Bros about BritteU’s authority, and received a reply, ‘‘Me authorise Brittell to sign lease.” Finally the lease was drawn up and submitted for B ; ‘mature, but never signed. On January 31, 1908, he saw Sharpe Bros. The rent wits assessed under the agreement. ’ Ho had never beard it suggested that Sharpe Bros wore not m possession under the terms of the agreement. On July 28, 1914, ho wrote to Sharpe Bros drawing attention to the fact that the pointing had not been done in terms of the agreement, and in reply he got a letter signed by Brittell on behalf of Sharpe Bros, stating that the work would _be done. At. the same timo a letter had been reccmid from Messrs M. Donnelly and Son agreeing to comply with the demands, but repudiating liability m regard to rates and insurance. - ° To Mr Donnelly: He recognised the recount of £147 produced as ono nuulo by Dr Thacker against Sharpe Bros, for rates, taxes and insurance, and iepudiatod by thorn, and waived by D* Thacker. The agreement provided for these payments as well as painting aud Veoaire He knew no reason why l>r Thacker should let them off for .ono payment and come on them for another As far hack as 1909 Snarpe 3 manager had disputed that .the. .condition- aj to painting was not m accordance with tho P tenoir of the conversations regardg tlia premises. Tho lease had never been completed, hut it had never been submitted to Britvell, who bad no power to sign, as it was to ho tegistsred. Sharpe Bros, had refused to Sl ‘Dr Thacker gave evidence that Sharpe Bros, entered into an arrangement with him and he made •certain-, halterations and additions, hl’e ient being assessed at £l4/ Bs. Ihe defendants were in possession seven yyais. After they had been in possession four years thev did not paint m accordance with the" agreement, and. lie wrote Brittell, who did all the business, and B jUned cheques. In. 1914 bliaipe Bios, went out, first, finding m approved tenant, Clark, tor whom he. had bad to paint and erase Sharpe s sign. No suggestion, liad ever been made that Sharpes'were on a periodical tenancy. A'r Sharpe had seen him about a renewal of the lease and'a reduction of the rent. He had not claimed for rates and insurance, because the business had all been dene by his brother undei a power -of attorney, and lie bad concluded that Hie charges were included in the annual rental. .He had never waived his claim for rates, which he bad put in along with the chum ion painting and repairs To Mr Donnelly: His solicitors. instructed by his brother, had written without prejudice, offering to forego 'the "rates if the painting and repairs were paid for. The defence was that Brittell was acting for Sharpe Bros., buff his power would not go as far as the signing of everything, and had no authority to out rates, taxes and insurance oil the rent, or render the firm, liable lor painting and repairs. Dr Thacuer had waived rat,es and taxes because he realised that Brittell hail no authority to sign for them, and there, had been a mutual abandonment of the agreement., which was proved- by tho fact that Duncan and Cottorill bad made no attempt to enforce the signing of the lease. Sharpe Bros, wore liable only under a yearly tenancy. The fact that the solicitors had allowed the matter to drag along for seven years and hnd abandoned part of their claim was presumptive evidenoo in favour ot Sharpe Bros. C. W. Sharpe, one of the defendants, said Dr Thacker had agreed to burtu

and renovate the stables, the rent being 10 per cent on tho buddings and 5 per cent on the value of tho land. There had been no mention of rates, taxes, insurance, painting or repairs. Tho place had been loft in ft perfectly clean state. His firm refused to sign the lease, and in agreeing to paint he had.. no idea of pa’intiing more than outside timber and doors. To Air Wright:. Brittell had been managing superintendent in New Zealand for four years, ami had arranged leases, 'signed cheques and generally managed the business. "•’Arthur Brittell, now employed by Ballin' Bros., said that .at the .conversation between Dr Thacker and Sharpe, it was agreed that tho whole liability was not to exceed £147. When he saw the lease ho was amazed to find the 'provisions regarding rates, insurance and painting. Ho had signed the agreement without reading it. “ An extraordinary admission from a business man,” commented the Magistrate. To Mr Wright: He remembered conversations with Mr Cotferill regarding the conditions of the lease, but did not know much about leases at the time. . G. H. 12. H unhand, present manager of Sharpe Bros., gave evidence that Dr 'Thacker’s premises had been left in a thoroughly satisfactory condition, and the interior whitewashed. i Tho Magistrate .said that the plaintiff had substantially proved his case, and he could not understand the argument about BrittcH’s limited liability. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £4Os Os 9d.