BROADWAY’S BUILDINGS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18573, 27 November 1920, Page 11

BROADWAY’S BUILDINGS.

PROVISIONS OF AN OLD LEASE. Argument was heard in the Supreme Court yesterday in a case that arose out of tho lease of land at the corner of Cathedral Square and Colombo Street, on which there are buildings; partly occupied by tea rooms, until recently known as “ Broadway’s ” and now known as “The Beresford.” The lease, which was for forty years, expired on January 1 this year. It was between Ponsonby May Carew and R. J. S. Harman, of the first part, John Bilton and Elizabeth Bilton. of Geraldine, of tho second part, and Frederick Hobbs, of the third part. It provided that the land should be leased to Hobbs for forty years. During the first five years of the term he was to erect on tho land and completely finish a good and substantial building to the value of £SOOO at least. At the end of tho lease the Biltons or their heirs _or assigns were to pay to Hobbs or his heirs or assigns two-thirds of tho then value of the Building. Tn October, 1919, bis Honor was asked to determine the meaning of that clause in the lease. The plaintiffs in that case were Arthur Clement Reed, Christchurch, accountant, Henry Hamilton Loughnan, Christchurch, solicitor, Maude _ Magdalean White, Christchurch, spinster, nnd Beatrice Joseph Buna, wife of Alfred Bunz, teacher of musio, Christchurch, and the defendant was Cecil James Bilton,' Temukn, bank officer. Plaintiffs claimed that the covenant that provided for the payment of compensation for the building applied not only to buildings erected within the first five years of the lease, but also buildings erected since the term of five years had expired. His Honor held that tho covenant did not entitle Hobbs or his assigns to compensation in respect of buildings erected over tho whole period of forty years, and he gave judgment for defendant. Yesterday, Mr M. J. Gresson, for Cecil James Bilton, moved for an order that service of originating summons should be effected on all the plaintiffs in the previous action. He argued that plaintiffs in the previous case, who are trustees of the will of Eliza White, and, consequently, now are the lessees of the laud, were not entitled to <wnipensation in respect to structural work erected in the building done during tho first five years, of the lease, but subsequently, when offices were' transformed into the present tea-rooms, replaced by Qolumns, girders and erections. Mr Gresson said that the words “ the then value,” in the lease, meant the value at the end of tho lease. The lease had expired, but the structural work was not present now, and as it did not exist, there could b© no. “ then value,” or, in other words, “present value,” of the work. Tho walls and partititions erected by Hobbs were taken out to make way for tho columns and girders. The walls and petitions were valued at £455, which was the sum involved in that action, but they were not there now. and they could have no present value. . Mr Loughnan, for the plaintiffs in the previous action, said that Mr Gresson's contention was a narrow ono. If tile lessees were to he hound to account for every faulty board and stone in the building that had been replaced, it would be absurd. If Mr Gresson’s contention was upheld, the lessees could have claimed no compensation whatever in case the building was destroyed by fire, which would be a monstrous construction of the leßse. The alterations had increased the value of the building. His Honor said that he thought the lessees had a moral claim at least. He would consider his decision.