DISPUTE OVER A LEASE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18679, 8 April 1924, Page 5

DISPUTE OVER A LEASE.

MANUKAU COUNCIL'S CLAIM. POSSESSION OF SMALL FARM COUNTER-CLAIM BY OCCUPIER. An application for possession of a property at Clevedon was heard by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Manukau County Council (Mr. Prendergast) sought to recover possession of a 20 acre section of land now in the occupation of Donald McDonald (Mr. Becker leg), a farmer. .Defendant had taken possession, claiming to be entitled to a lease in pursuance of a resolution of the council, which resolution had, however, subsequently been rescinded. Defendant counter-claimed for the specific performance of the lease, and £100 damages, or alternatively, for £71 special and £200 general damages. Mr. Prendergast submitted that the council was entitled to rescind its resolution, as it did some 11 days later. If there was originally a contract to grant or lease he contended it would be ultra vn*es to the council. Plaintiffs claimed £10 for mesne damages and 5s a week. Arthur El Ashcroit, clerk of the Manukau County Council, under cross-examina-tion stated that he did not officially notify defendant of the offer, and the council did not communicate with him Witness was instructed to prepare a lease, but did not do so. The motion rescinding the lease was passed on xuay 29. and it was reported on June 19 that McDonald had entered on to the property. Up to that time defendant had had no notification that he was not to enter. In April it was stated that defendant was to have the lease as from June 1. The notice to McDonald to quit was dated September 6, and previous to that defendant had paid certain rent, but it had been returned to him. To His Honor, witness said he thought that Mr. A. D. Bell, the late chairman of the council, mentioned the lease to defendant. Witness, continuing, said that Morrison and another were the men who were anxious to have the resolution rescinded, and it was they who were elected for Wairoa Riding, taking the place of Bell and another member. Witness could not say whether defendant actively assisted the candidature of the two latter members. Defendant stated that he was spoken to by Bell, and asked if he would take the place. He was to pay 5s a week, on the understanding that he cleared three acres a year. He had since cleared six acres. Under cross-examination, defendant said he was told in June by Morrison that he was going to bo turned out because he had canvassed for Bell and Luke. Alexander D. Bell who had been five years chairman of the council, stated in reply to His Honor that he certainly made it his business to tell McDonald that the council had granted' the lease. The case was adjourned.