Foxton

Manawatu Times, Volume LIV, Issue 7287, 14 October 1933, Page 10

Foxton

From Our Own Correspondent Drainage Board Affairs. The last meeting of the Moutoa Drainage Board to be held beforo the triennial election, took place at Buxton on Thursday evening. .Present were Messrs J. Clirystall (chairman), B. G. Gower, D. Purcell, W. S. Carter (Palmerston North), and the clerk and treasurer (Mr. G. V. Fraser). An apology was received from Mr. W. E. Barber. Reporting upon the finances of the board, the treasurer stated that the state of the bank accounts was as follows: Bank New Zealand at credit £4ll 18s Id, Post Office Savings Bank at credit £u& 11s 3d. The balances of the main ledger accounts, all of which were in creuit, were:—General account £341 IDs Id, interest account £tii) Ills, workers’ dwelling sinking fund account £OS 11s 3d. A brief discussion took place concerning the finances, Mr. Carter drawing attention to the small amount at the credit of the workers’ dwelling fund account. The treasurer drew attention to the lact that ho had from time to time urged the board to increase this amount but that the matter had always been deferred. After further discussion on the matter it was resolved “that it be a recommendation to the incoming board of trustees that consideration be given to the question of progressively increasing the amount of the workers’ dwelling sinking fund.” The clerk also reported that the ratepayers’ list for the current year had that day been placed before the Stipeiidiary Magistrate, and there being no objections, had been duly certified by mm as being' correct. The foreman (Mr. T. A. Robinson) reported that the following work nan peen carried out: —The cleaning of one side to half the width of the Main dram through the syndicate block for a instance of 35 chains, and about a further .12 chains commencing from a point about live chains below Robinson’s bend. Here the swangrass had obtained a big hold and owing to the great depth of the water it had been necessary to use a boat to carry out the work. The catting of willow trees had also been carried out for a distance of 15 chains where the drain runs along Kind and Company’s property. Eighteen chains of willowcutting had also been done along one side of Langley's south drain. The contractors for the cleaning of the Diagonal drain and also those employed in Langley’s south and Seifert’s drain had completed their work. Two inspections of both floodgates had x-t-on made during the mouth and both were found to be working well. Appreciation of Services. At the conclusion of the meeting the chairman, in referring to the fact that the meeting that evening was the last beforo the election, expressed his thanks to members for the hearty co-operation in all matters affecting the board’s affairs during the past term. Mr. W. S. Carter complimented life chairman on the manner in which he had handled the affairs of the board. Not Seeking Re-election. Mr. Carter, who intimated that be would not' seek re-election, said he w<vs extremely sorry to learn that Mr. Gower had definitely decided not to accept nomination for a further term of office. He expressed the hope that. Mr. Gower would change his mind, for his knowledge of the district and of drai.wge matters «iw very extensive and his services and experience were of considerable value to the board. The chairman also expressed bis regret at Mr. Gower’s decision. Mr. Gower, lie said, had been the first chairman of the board and he knew the district better than any oilier member, having resided in the area since he was a boy. He had a thorough knowledge of the work in which lie lia.d always taken a great interest. Mr. Gower, in thanking members for their kind remarks, said lie felt that it was time some of the younger men bad a chance. His work on the board bad always been a pleasure, but he regretted that he could not see his way clear to carry on. The nieeling closed with members expressing the hope that Mr. Gower would give the matter further consideration. Manawatu Rabbit Board. The monthly meeting- of the Manawatu Rabbit Board was held at Foxton on Thursday afternoon, those present being Messrs B. G. Gower (chairman), W. E. Barber, T. Grammer, B. Grant (Palmerston North) and the secretary (Mr. If. Rangiheuea). The board's inspector (Mr. D. R. Barron) was also in attendance. In his report he stated that during the past fortnight he had been engaged more especially in regard to the general inspection of properties following up letters and circulars dealing with fumigation necessary. In seasons such as was at present being experienced, when breeding was at its height, it was most essential- that this work be carried out and there could be no excuse for it not being done when experienced men could be obtained for the small amount of wages necessary to carry out the work under the No. 11 unemployment scheme. The men employed under this scheme were doing good work and the number of "nests” destroyed in the course of fumigation work would more than repay the outlay incurred. Further litters ol' nine had been found, which fact went to show the great necessity for work at this time of the year in order to even control the increase in the pest. Ragwort was already showing up on properties in some parts of the district and steps were being taken to see that more sodium chlorate was used this vear so that the eradication of this weed would be more completely carried out. Preparations were at present being made to completely clear up the worst ragwort area in the district. Dispute Over Rent Reduction. The major portion of the time at the monthly sitting of the Magistrate’s Court at Foxton on Thursday was taken up in the hearing of a case which created a good deal of interest and in which V. P. Burr (Mr. Gordon), dairy farmer of Foxton, sued Stevens, Easton and Austin (Mr. Bergin), owners of the Moutoa estate, for £3G Is Gd. The amount claimed by plaintiff was made up as follows: £ IS lGs being amount of 20 per cent, rebate of rent under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act, £25 value of buildings, and £3 4s refund of grazing charges, less an amount of £lO 18s Gd since admitted to be owing to defendants. Mr. J, L, Siout, S.M., was on tne Bench. Mr. Gordon, in outlining the case, said that the claim had arisen from tile final determining of some form of tenancy which had existed between plaintiff and the defendants. In August, .1025, plaintiff had occupied a portion of the defendants’ land, the rent being based on the charge of Is per head per week of dairy cows grazed on the property. This arrangement went on for some time and eventually plaintiff married and erected buildings on the land. The arrangement then made with Mr. F. .S. Easton gave plaintiff the right to remove the improvements from the property in the event of the tenancy being terminated. There was, however, no agreement in writing. The tenancy terminated in May of this year. Counsel gave details of an agreement then entered into between the parties at that time, when the Bank of New Zealand held a bill of sale over plaintiff’s stock and chattels. By this agreement F. S. Easton was to pay to the Bank of New Zealand the sum of £4OO together witli an amount covering all interest to date, in return for which plaintiff agreed to hand over the stock concerned. Concerning the question of rent, counsel said that plaintiff, not being sure about the provisions of the National Expenditure Adjustment Act, rang Mr, Easton and asked for a reduction in the amount charged. At that time £l6 was owing for rent. “Mr. Easton,” said counsel, “ in all probably his usual free and not too easy manner had replied ‘l’ll b well sell you up.’ ” Counsel contended that plaintiff had never foregone any right to the reductions under the National Expenonure Adjustment Act for which was claimed the sum of £IS IGs. In regard to the claim of £3 4s, this was in respect of the grazing of 1G head of cattle which, owing to shortage of feed had been taken off the property and grazed elsewhere. Counsel contended that plaintiff had carried out all his duties under the agreement hut defendant had not done so. He had paid in the £4OO but not the interest. The claim for £25 for improvements would be waived, however, providing the agMement for the payment of £4OO and interest by Mr. Easton was carried out in full. The question of rent, however, was still to be determined. Vincent Paul Burr (to Mr. Gordon) said that when lie approached Mr. Easton for a reduction in rent, Mr. Easton had said that he reckoned he had the place cheap enough and he refused. He finally got annoyed and said he would sell him up. He had never waived any rights for a reduction /in rent. The last demand he received for payment of rent showed for the first timo a deduction for.

a rebate of rent over the last three months. To Mr. Bergin, witness said that Easton had told him over the ’phone that he could get off the property immediately if lie wanted to. To Mr. Gordon plaintiff said that Easton held his order on the factory before witness asked for a reduction in the rent. ‘‘Easton just took the full rent whether X Jilted it or not,” he said. Keith Hutchins, who was temporarily employed by plaintiff in May last, confirmed the fact that Bun- was running some of his stock on Jamieson’s place, when Easton and a man called Fletcher called to take a tally of the stock. For the defence, Mr. Bergin claimed an exemption from the payment of the 20 per cent, reduction of rent under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act on the grounds that the statute provided that no claim for such reduction could be made in respect of a period in excess of three months from either the date of the payment or the passing or the Act. ITaintiff had approached one of the defendants (Easton) for a reduction of rent and when it was not granted, being a monthly tenant, he could, if not satislied, have quit the property. He continued to carry on the tenancy, however, and made no claim for a rebate till June, 1933. No suggestion of the present action was made at that time and with a view to saving trouble, defendants had credited Burr with a 20 per cent, reduction over the last three months. Mr. Gordon maintained that Bun was not a monthly tenant. Although there was no written agreement on the point it was not reasonable to suppose that a man would build a house on the propelty if lie were only a monthly tenant. Burr considered he was at least a tenant by the season. Counsel contended that plaintiff was entitled to the reduction in rent all through. Edward William Thane, manager of the Bank of New Zealand at Fox-ton, said lie was decidedly of the impression that Mr. Bergin had made it clear that lie had foregone quite enough in Burr’s favour and tiiat he was not in a position to grant any further concessions without referring the matter to Hr. Easton. What lie (Mr. Bergin) laid said was that if the agreement was carried out he felt sure that would lie the end of the matter. In reviewing the facts, the Magistrate said that the question seemed to be the matter cf equity. It seemed to him that Easton ought to have allowed the 20 per cent, reduction right through. Although plaintiff now had no legal right, Easton ought to have allowed it. Mr. Bergin: Burr was only a monthly tenant—if he was not satisfied he could have got off. The Magistrate: It is easy enough to say lo a man, walk off, blit tiiat is not equity. The Magistrate then intimated that m the matter of the claim, judgment would be entered for defendant, while in regard to the counter claim of £lO 18s Gd, judgment would be entered for plaintiff. Mr. Bergin applied for costs. The Magistrate (emphatically): No costs It is a matter of equity and fair conscience. Easton should have allowed the reduction right through. As it is defendants got £lB more than was allowed under the Act.