LEASE OF PREMISES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20626, 26 July 1930, Page 16

LEASE OF PREMISES.

AN ALLEGED AGREEMENT.

COURT ACTION CONTINUED.

EVIDENCE FOR DEFENCE

[ISY TELEOIIAPH. —PRESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON, Friday. Tho hearing of tho case in which the non-fulfilment of contracts to lease a portion of certain premises in Lome Street, Auckland, was alleged against the Lawrenco and Hanson Electrical Company, Limited, by Hallenstein Brothers, Limited, was continued before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day. Plaintiff asked tho Court to order defendant specifically to perform tho agreement which it was alleged had been entered into and to accept tho lease and possession of the premises. Alternatively, plaintiff claimed judgment for £946 9s 8d as damages, with costs. (living evidence for the defence, C. J. Hanson, formerly branch manager of tho defendant company at Auckland, said tho rent for tho premises in plaintiff's building was always paid to Midlane Brothers, Iho previous lessees, until tho hitter's lease expired. No arrangement was then made about a now lease by witness. One morning he found a copy of a proposed lease on his desk. As he had no [tower to act in tho matter he sent the document on to the Wellington office. Witness denied having told Fels, the managing director for plaintiff, that it was intended to tako a lease for five years. Witness said he was fully authorised to give notice of intention to quit. Cross-examined, witness denied that he had paid rates as well as rent for the premises, because it was a condition of the lease with plaintiff. He admitted th.it he did not tell anyone he was not liable for rent or rates, and said ho was instructed to pay rent and rates provided tho amounts were correct. Ho believed that, apart from any arrangement, ho had to pay rates on any building ho was occupying. Henry Francis Vickcry, New Zealand managing director of defendant company, said ho dirl not sign tho proposed lease as ho considered the rent was too high. His firm had remained in plaintiff's building after Midland's lease expired because they liked the place, but at the time were looking out for inore suitable premises. The rent had been high from the beginning. In reply to His Honor, witness said he was aware that the Auckland branch was paying £SOO a year rent. He was also aware that it was stipulated, when the Auckland branch got the premises, that there should be right of renewal for five years.

The Court adjourned until to-morrow morning.