TOWN HALL LEASE.

Northern Advocate, 12 June 1931, Page 3

TOWN HALL LEASE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —With reference to my letter appearing in your issue of last night* under the above heading, in my opim ion the footnote you added to it, by way of explanation, is not an answer to the questions raised by me. Doubtless, your information wa,> received from the Town Clerk, 4ml has been given by you in the best of faith, but I wish to ask the further following questions:

(1) Was the council aware that Whangaroi Pictures Ltd. was a company having a nominal capital of £SOOO, of which equal portions were allotted to the Fuller-liayward Corporation and to Mrs M. Mason i

(2) Was the council given any reason why those two lessees of the ratepayers’ Town Hall should suddenly wish to limit their liability by the formation of the company in question?

(A) The formation and objects of Whangarei Pictures Ltd. were published in the “Advocate” at the time of the incorporation of the company, and the main object was the taking over of the Town Hall lease. 3'rom your footnote, it appears that the company never took an assignment of the Town Hall lease, so that its allotted capital of 1)000 shares has never been fully paid up. Why did the council allow Ihe lessees (the Culler-Hay ward Corporation and Mrs M. Mason) to permit another party (Whangarei Pictures Ltd.) to occupy the Town Hall, when the lease must, if it ie drawn like an ordinary lease, contain a covenant against the lessees parting with the 1 possession of the Town Hall? (4) Moreover, why did the council allow the rent to fall seriously into arrears at all?

(d) I understand that the lease contains a provision that if the rent is in arrears for one week, a penalty of £?, per day is payable; and, if in arrears for two weeks, the penalty is increased to £6 per day. As this is a debt due to all the ratepayers of this borough why wau it not enforced, especially as the rent became some months in arrears?

(0) The penalty must amount to several hundreds of pounds. Would not the receipt of this sum of money (to which the council and ratepayers are entitled by law), probably do away with the necessity of cutting down the wages and salaries of borough employees, many of whom are married men with families, and living on wages as low as £4 8/ a week? (7) Has the council taken stops to inquire into the liquidation of this company's affairs, and see that the ratepayers' interests are protected? (8) In view of the fact that one of the lessees of the Town Hall is not now resident in Whangarei, and the [ other is a company, having no capital or interests in Whangarei, other than that of taking as much money ae It can out of the town, was it not the duty of the council, when the rent began to get into arrears to the tune of

several hundreds of pound?, to see that the position was gone into 1 ’ in conclusion, Mr Editor, I wish to emphasise the point that, at a time when the greatest economy is necessary in the administration of the borough, at a time when estimates for parks, roads, maintenance, library, etc., are being of necessity scrutinised most carefully, and at a time when i the working men in the employ of I the council are likely to have their wages severely cut, thj council hao i permitted the lessees of the Town Hall 'not only to fall into serious arrears j with their vent, but have also, it would i appear, omitted to impose the penalities which the council’s duty to the ■ratepayers and to it«s employees de--1 mauds. I can see no reason whatever j why the penalties, which the lessees j themselves agreed to pay if they do'faulted in paying their rent, should 'not lie paid. The borough, and the ratepayers individually, are not In the i financial position to waive a perfect!} 1 legal right to a considerable sum of , monev, —I am, etc,, ) ’ RATEPAYER.