SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 24, 5 March 1914, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

A MATTER OF LEASES. The case Peter Williams, of Oamaru, commission agent, against Benjamin Perry, of Christchurch, hotelkeeper, a claim for £lO2, was heard before his Honour Mr. Justice Denniston in the Supreme Court to-day. The matter arose out of the plaintiff's tenancy of premises owned by the defendant at Oamaru. His lease was terminated, and plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to £52, which was agreed to be paid on the determination of the tenancy, and £SO, being portion of the amount expended on improvement to the premises. The defendant had paid £ls into court as a full settlement. Mr E. P. Lee (Oamaru) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr A. F. Wright for the defendant. . Counsel for the plaintiff explained that the original lease provided that ithe landlord should have the right at all times and without cause to determine the tenancy, by giving a month's notice in writing. The landlord had then to pay as compensation £52 as rent of the premises, and any sum, not exceeding £SO, as half the value of improvements made by the lessee during his tenancy. It was also provided that on the termination of the lease there should be a right of renewal at an increased rent. Before the original lease expired Williams made arrangements for a renewal of the existing lease on the same terms for a period of one year. The plaintiff actually spent £l6O 17/4 on improvements, so that he was fully entitled to the £SO compensation. .Mr Wright, for the defendant, admitted that the tenancy was determined without cause. The points on issue were: (1) That there was a compromise between the parties to settle the matter for the sum of £ls; (2) that the amount expended on improvements was spent under the original lease, which expired on November 14,1912, and there was no provision for compensation for improvements under the renewed lease.

Mr Lee threw further light on th<s subject by stating that the premises concerned in the tenancy consisted of buildings connected with an old hotel. The landlord reserved the right to terminate the lease and cancel the agreement without cause so that he could resume possession if licenses were restored in Oamaru. His Honour: Oh, now I see.

Mr Wright said that if the house got back its license it would be a good thing for the defendant, and he was willing to pay for the right to resume possession. The first lease expired in the ordinary way, and the rights under that lease also went. The, question of compensation for improvements could only arise if the improvements were effected under the eecond term. The lease under- the second term Was determined after it had run 10 months. No improvements had been made during that period. Counsel admitted that, apart from the compromise, the plaintiff would be entitled to £52 rent for the determination of his lease. Williams came to Christchurch to see Perry. Perry was not then aware of his liability under the Idase to pay £52 compensation for rent for the determination of the lease. Williams asked for £3O, but Perry said that he did not regard himself as liable to pay anything. He offered, however, to pay £ls in full settlement. Williams said that he did not wish' to go to law, as the lawyers vould .get all the money, and he would get none. "He agreed to accept the £ls, and he also agreed to leave all the fixtures in the house as they were.

His Honor: And the consideration was what?

Mr Wright: The consideration was a settlement without litigation. Perry wrote to Williams subsequently formally accepting the offer which had been made.

His Honor: It was written to obtain a confirmation.

Evidence •as to the alleged compromise was given by the defendant. In reply to Mr Lee, he stated that when Williams asked for £3O he was not merely referring to gas fittings, shelvings, and counters in the building which he was entitled to remove.

William Fisher M'llroy (clerk to Perry) and P. W. Ongley (solicitor, Oamaru) also gave evidence. The latter said that plaintiff was embarrassed financially. Witness had discussed his position, and advised him to see Perry personally. When plaintiff returned from Christchurch he said that Perry had offered £ls, and asked witness not to put any obstacle in the way of his receiving this money, as Perry intended to refer the matter to him. Later witness saw Williams to settle the matter on that basis, and Williams then told him that it was in the hands of his solicitor. : In reply to Mr Lee, witness said that he received a letter from Messrs Lee and Grave, solicitors, informing him that Williams claimed £lO2. He then wrote informing Lee and . Grave that he was not acting for Mr Perry. Mr Lee: Was that repudiation of solicitorship merely to enable Perry to get in his formal acceptance of the £ls offer?. Witness: Not at all. . , This closed the case 1 for the defendant.

Mr Lee, for the plaintiff, said that when Williams received notice to quit he conferred with his solicitors to ascertain "his legal position. As the re-: suit of that advice he went to Christchurch with the. intention of claiming £lO2, and that he would still have the right to remove his gas fittings, counter and shelving. He had an interview with Perry, and claimed the amount owing under the lease. He figured oat the price of his gas fittings, counter, and shelving at £36, and it was on these items that he was willing to take £ls. Perry denied all liability for the other claims. ' ,

The plaintiff gave evidence, in which he specifically denied that the £ls referred to his claim under the lease-..

In reply to Mr Wright, plaintiff said that he had been advised by his solicitors that the fittings were part of th« building, and that he had no claim over them. He had them all taken down, and put them back again. This concluded the evidence. Counsel then addressed the court oa the point of law as to whether the defendant 's obligations under the first lease were carried-on under the renewal. Mr Wright contended that as the first lease had expired by effluxion of time, the rights of the plaintiff under that lease also expired. He was entitled to a renewal for five years, at an increased rental. Williams, however, did not accept that, and got practically a new lease for one year. " Mr Lee contended that the second lease was an extension of the original lease, and that all the rights under that lease were again conferred on the tenant. His Honour said that he had come to a conclusion on the facts of the

case. The plaintiff was suing on an agreement that gave him an undisputed right to at least a sum of £52. There was an agreement, and all the parties must have been well aware of it. That was met by the statement that the right was compromised for £ls. His Honour referred to the law governing considerations, and said that the actual payment of a small sum for the undisputed right to receive a large sum was not a consideration. It would require a very strong case to convince him that the plaintiff deliberately agreed to take £ls for an undisputed claim to £52. The whole question turned on verbal statements. As soon as it came to writing, one of the parties repudiated it. He was satisfied that all the reasons and the presumptions were on the side of the plaintiff. The defendant made an unfair claim on the face of it, and he had not satisfied the court that he could rely on his grossly unjust interpretation of the position. The plaintiff was undoubtedly entitled to £52 on the facts of the case. The legal points raised would be reserved. To-morrow the case C. Tasker v. the New Zealand Metropolitan Trotting Club will be heard before a special jury at 10 a.m.