HOBBS'S BUILDINGS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 18217, 3 October 1919, Page 4

HOBBS'S BUILDINGS.

TERMS OF LEASE. INTERPRETATION SOUGHT. In tho Supreme Court yesterday, his Honor Mr Justice Herdman was asked to interpret the terms of a lease in respect of Hobbs's Buildings, commonly known as Broadway's corner. Tho plaintiffs were Arthur Clement Reed, of Chrlstchurch, accountant. Henry Hamilton Loughnan, of Christchurch, solicitor, Maude Magdaiean, "White, spinster, and Beatrice .Joseph Bunz, wife of Alfred Buna, of Christchurch, teacher of music. The defendant was Cecil James Bilton, or Tcniuka, bank officer. -i Mr H. H. Loughnan appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr M. J. Gresson for the defendant. • The defendant ir tho exneutor in the estate of the original owners of tho property (John Bilton and Elizabeth Biiton.) By a series of assignments the lease, originally in the name of Frederick Hobbs, now stands in tho name of the plaintiffs, who are the trustees in the estato of the late Mr A. d. "White- ' . The originating summons wtatcd triat by a lease dated May 28, 1880. between Ponsonby May Carew and Richard James Strachan Haxman, of the first part, John Bilton and Elizabeth Bilton. of the «emm| part, and Frederick Hobbs, cf the third part, the first and second parties thereto did demise and lease to the third party all the land comprised in the leaso, together with certain rights of way. «.V the terms of the leasG the lessee covenanted at his own cost and expense, within five years from tho commencement of the term granted, to erect, put up ami completely finish upon tho said demised premises, a good and substantial b-ii'ding, or buildings, of. the yaltie ot £SOOO at the least, and such covenant was duly performed. By the terms ot the lease it was also provided that it the covenant to build was duly performed bv the lessee the said John Hilton and Elizabeth Bilton would, at the term or the said demise, pay to the said Frederick Hobbs two-thirds of the then value of all such building, or buildings. as should be erected, put up and completely finished by him upon the land thereby demised, such value to bo arrived at in the manner provided by the terms of the lease. Plaintiffs claimed, and defendant denied, that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation in respect of the additions to tho buildings as well as in respect of the buildings erected during tho term of fivo years specified in the. covenant. ' Mr Loughnan said that the covenant was to erect within five years building-, of a value-of £-000. The point for Jus Honor to'decide was whether compeiuntion should be made for buildings erected after that period. Loth parties were agreed as to the Valuation oi tin" buLdings by an independent valuer. The principle to be laid down wa* whether tho arbitrator was to take intu account any buildings erected after the term of five years specified in the covenant. ~,.•* ±i. j • His Honor suggested that if the defendant w«re to get compensation tor any buildings he might erect there was no need to mention the term of five years in the covenant. ' Mr Loughnan contended that tile term "all buildings" meant all build ings- Tho word "such" in the claust in° covemnt relating to tho erection of buildings was, counsel submittcorrelative with the word "as," the phrase "cuch as" being equivalent to the relative pronoun " which." Counsel submitted that thb'U was no aiubiguitv in tin* document. Mr Gresson said the whole matter was a bare pouit of conssl*'action. He could quote no authorities to assist hisHonor, as the question was one of what this 'particular lease meat. Counso' ■submitted that the intention of tho lease wns clear from. Iho clause that the buildings were to Vt< erected and completely finished witb.n five veaTs, The compensation clause, counsel contended, should be read i-'< conjunction with the clause compallir.iT the lessee 1/. build- If this was d<mi> there, could be no doubt about the in.UterHis flonor said '"> would take time to consider the mailer. Judgment wa*; accordingly reserved