LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8178, 13 February 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-*Civil Sittings. Wednesday. [Before Ilia Honor Mr. Justice Conolly and a Jury of twolvo.] Thomas Slater v. Auckland City Council. —This was an action brought to have a certain deed of lease set aside and cancelled, and to recover £700 damages. Mr. Tolo, instructed by Mr. Johnston, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Theo. Cooper, instructed by Mr. Cotter, for the defence. Mr. Tole opened the case by reading tho pleadings. ; The plaintiff is the lessee of the City Market, and the defendant? the Corporation of the City of Auckland. The plaintiff became lessee of the market-house by deed of lease for three years at a rent of £75 per month, payable in advance. Plaintiff alleged that he was induced to take the lease on the faith of certain representations made to him that he would be entitled .to receive certain rents, tolls, dues, &c, in respect of the market, and in respect of carts, weighbridge, wheelbarrows, hawkers' licenses, and licenses to market gardeners. The plaintiff had paid the said rent, had paid rent up to October, but had not been able to demand the rents, tolls, dues, &c, to which he Avas entitled, and had lost considerable sums of money, and though on the 22nd of February, 1889, the defendant, in writing, agreed to give plaintiff every assistance in the collection of such dues, the plaintiff prayed that tho defendant pay the sum of £700 damages, and that accounts be taken of all moneys received and paid by plaintiff in respect of the market, and for such other relief as the Court may deem fit. To this the defence set up was a denial that the plaintiff became lessee of the Market on the faith of any representation made either before or at tho time of the execution of the deed of lease. That they never represented that plaintiff would receive rents, tolls, etc., amounting to £120 per month, or that they ever represented that plaintiff would be entitled to hawkers' and market gardeners' licenses. Mr. Tolo then procoeded to open the facts of the case, and called the plaintiff, who ! deposed that he wont to see the Town Clerk, and asked for the conditions of lease of tho City Market, and they were handed to him. In the course of a conversation, the Town Clerk volunteered tho statement that it was worth £120, but witI ness knew as welfi as he did what it was worth, with tho tolls and dues added. j Witness said yes, it was worth £100 a month with the tolls and dues, and Mr. Philips replied that tho tolls and dues were to be put to them, that they were going to enforce them, and that they wore goinc to get a short Bill through the House. 'fhey were not in force then. The market was not worth more than £40 a month without the tolls, and he knew it then. Mr. Philips told him tho Bill would be through the House, and the whole thing in operation in. June, and there would then be power to compol hay carts, market gardeners' carts, and all produce carts, &c, to go to the market ; and further said that the farmers and people had long enough used the streets for nothing, and they actually had to find them in water for nothing. Tho witness in his examination-in-chief, said that on the conditions of the advertisement and the representations made by Mr. Philips he bid for the lease of the market. He had not been in the market for four years prior to this conversation, but he had been previously lesseo of the market. He purchased the market, paid a month's rent in advance, and took possession on the Ist April. Previously he had the collection of tolls, and had it not been for the Town Clerk's representation ho would have had nothing to do with it. Tho witness was being examined as to his rights, bub Mr. Cooper objected that these were, in writing, and must bo produced. Witness deposed that ho was pretty sure after the interview with Mr. Philips as to hay, co-n, and produce, that he would be granted the rights he previously held, and more, and he took out an auctioneer's license. After he had been a fortnight in possession he was given to understand that the corporation would collect hawkers' fees, etc. Prior to that he was told by the Town Clerk that all that was in the previous leases existed, that was grant--1 ing licenses to market gardeners, etc. Witness paid £40 for the auctioneer's license in the name of J. C. Carbines, in order that he might sell the produce. He signed the lease on tho Ist day of April, the sale being on the 15th February. Prior to that ho saw Mr. Philips several times, but they had no conversation on this subject until tho morning ho signed the lease, when he asked Mr. Philips if he was sure all the produce would be compelled to go to the market ? He wanted to know that before he signed tho lease, and Mr. Philips said yes, and told him to go and sign the lease. Mr. Philips told him it was all sure about the produce, otherwise he would have sacrificed the £75 ho had paid. Nothing of tho produce, however, came to tho market, and those tolls advertised here were all a sham. When he took possession ho bought timber to erect a store room and auction room. His Honor pointed out that there was nothing in the statement of claim for expenses of erecting buildings. Mr. Tolo asked leave to amend and Mr. Cooper opposed, but Mr. Tole contended that it was competent to do so in order to enable the jury to judge of the expense ho had been put to. His Honor said that there was no allegations in the plea that hay, straw, &c, would have to be sold in the market. Tho corporation could not undertake to pass an Act, they could only undertake to introduce a Bill. All the selling in Durhamstreet went on because it was not prohibited by Act of Parliament. Examination resumed : Produce was not yet brought to the market, and the City Council never assisted, and every time he paid his rent, he complained to Mr. Philips and the treasurer. Witness did nob issue any permits to hawkors because the Corporation issued them ; and when he spoke to Mr. Philips on the subject ho said that the Corporation had the sole right to sell them. Ho told Mr. Philips that instead of buying a market he only bought an old shoe shop. He estimated that, if tho produce had been brought to the market, the revenue would have been from £1400 to £1500 a year— that is, the receipts would bo that; but the receipts had, as per list of takings every week, produced about £30 per month, or about £400 a year. A large quantity of correspondence plaintiff and the Council was put in evidence and read, also a number of documents. Tho witness was cross-examined, and said that he understood that every cart, wheelbarrow, and basket should go into the market, and that he should receive the fees on them. what he understood was represented to him, and the Town Clerk distinctly said they were to get a bill through, that all produce should go there, and that was why he bought the market. He admitted that he had not performer? his part of the conditions of sale in providing bondsmen, but he said neither «had the Council performed their part of the contract. He never said anything to Mr. Cotter, the Council's solicitor, or to any one else, as to what Mr. Philips had promised, nor did he consider ib politic in his correspondence with the Council to tell them the promises Mr. Philips had made. The Court at this stage adjourned till ten o'clock next morning.