LEASE OF A FARM.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18392, 28 July 1931, Page 8

LEASE OF A FARM.

DISPUTE AS TO TERMS. WHO SHOULD PAY RATES? CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE. A claim for £lOl 5s 6d was brought in the Hamilton -Magistrate’s Court to-day, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., for the balance of rent, rates, insurance and manure allegedly owing in connection with the occupancy of a farm at Motumaoho. Plaintiff was Samuel Gibson, farmer, Hamilton, and defendant, Leslie Young, farmer, Hamilton,

Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr E. Clayton-Greene is the owner of 82 acres at Motumaoho. During September, 1929, he agree# to lease the land to Young at a rental of £l2O per annum, payable half yearly in advance. Plaintiff asserted that defendant agreed to pay the rates and insurance. Defendant entered into occupation and remained in possession until April i, 1931. Plaintiff claimed that £26 6s was still due for rent, £l6 4s 6d for rates and £63 for manure which plaintiff provided for. defendant. There was also 15s owing for a milk can allegedly removed by defendant.

A counter claim was entered for £26 6s for carting and spreading the manure and £5 for hay sold by defendant to plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Evidence. Plaintiff, Samuel Gibson, farmer, Hamilton, said that in August, 1929. he was approached by defendant with a view to leasing the plaintiff’s Motumaoho farm. They went out to inspect the property and it was decided that the rental should be £l2O a year. Defendant mentioned various improvements that be contemplated making and expressed satisfaction with the place and terms. Defendant and his wife later visited the property several times and subsequently Young decided to take it. Witness questioned Young regarding his finances and defendant replied that he was not too financial as he had to buy stock. Witness offered to assist him in the purchase of the calves. He (plaintiff) also decided to finance the manuring, but it was understood that Young was to pay witness for this later. It was decided that the lease should operate from October 1, from which date rent was to be paid, although Young was allowed to take possession before this. There were one and a-half tons of manure in the shed and of this witness made defendant a present. Witness spent £IOO on improvements to the house, as requested by Young. A proper lease was drawn up, which witness signed but Young never signed it. Defendant, paid two instalments of rent, the second one after he had been in possession for six months. At the end of 12 months witness visited the place and was not at all satisfied with -the way it was being farmed. The majority of the drains had not been cleaned, nothing had been done to the fences, and noxious weeds were growing. Witness saw Mr Norris, solicitor, and instructed him to give Young notice to quit.

Refused to Pay the Rates. Plaintiff said he had only purchased the property a short time before leasing it to Young and the rates were then properly apportioned and were paid up to March 31, 1930. The same applied to the insurances. Defendant did not pay the 1930-31 rates and when witness received the rate notice he handed it to Mr Norris to collect from defendant. The manure, which witness sent on to the place cost him £63 4s. Defendant refused to pay the rates. Defendant on leaving took away one of the cream cans. This was valued at 15s. Cross-examined by Mr MacDiarfnld, who appeared for defendant plaintiff denied thqt the place was in a very bad state when he bought it. It was passable. The fences and gates were certainly not in good order. He (plaintiff), spent £IOO on repairs to the house.

Plaintiff denied that he promised to allow defendant for any improvements he might make on the place or that he would pay the Insurance and rates. Plaintiff did not promise to pay defendant for his work in top-dressing the land.

Mr Mac Diarmid: Do you deny that the farm has been improved?—Yes. Plaintiff denied that he discussed the question of improvements before the lease was signed. He denied also that he ever discussed with a decorator named Lovegrove the matter of improvements to the house. Hensleigh C. M. Norris, solicitor, gave evidence of having been instructed by Gibson to prepare a lease from him to Young. On the following day Young called, perused the lease, and objected to paying the rates and insurance. Subsequently he called again and agreed to pay the rates ana insurance, but he wanted compensation for certain proposed improvements. Witness told Young he had better settle the matter with Gibson. Young did not sign the lease and witness appraised Gibson of this fact. Young entered into possession, however, and about i2 months later, following an inspection of the farm by Gibson, the latter instructed witness to.give Young notice to quit. Answering .Mr Mac Diarmid, witness said the instructions for the lease came from Gibson. Mr Mac Diarmid: And it was clear that Young was never satisfied with the lease and refused to sign it?—He certainly never signed it. Mr Mac Diarmid: He objected to paying the rates and insurance unless some compensation were granted him for improvements?—He did make that objection. John McKenzie, farmer, I-lillcrest, called by plaintiff, said he knew botli parties in the case. He remembered Young, about the time he took the place, staling that lie had a good offer of a place and that he thought he had a good thing on. He said that the owner was sending him down manure and that he was getting the place free for five or six weeks in order to get it. ready for the spring. Witness' recollection of the conversation was that Young said the manure was being sent, to him and that lie was to put it an. John Taylor recollected a conversation with Young, from which be gathered that Gibson was supplying the manure and that 1m (Young) was to cart and spread it. Evidence of Defendant. Defendant, Leslie Young, said that prior lo September, 1929, he farmed a leasehold properly at Tnmnhere. While there, Gibson approached and (.Continued in next column.;

asked him to lease his Motumaoho farm. Plaintiff called on witness several times and made him many promises of assistance, offering to topdress the place if witness would take it over. Witness went out to see the place and found it in a verybad state, and his wife refused to go on to it- Gibson repeated his calls, however, on one occasion,-arriving at defendant’s farm at daybreak with more promises. Witness finally decided to take the place for three years at £l2O a year rental, Gibson undertaking to pay the rates and insurances, to topdress the land and to allow' him for improvements made. Gibson carried out his promise to do up the house and rebuild the cowshed. Witness gave plaintiff a price for the work of lopdressing, and Gibson was satisfied with this. Witness did practically all this work before' taking possession. When witness asked for a properly drawn up lease, Gibson replied “‘Can’t you trust me' mate?” Later Gibson said Mr Norris had prepared a lease and told him to go and sign it, adding: “He has made it a bit hard for you mate.” On perusing the N lease and finding that the liability for rates and Insurance was thrown on him (defendant), he refused to sign it. Witness was not troubled about the rates further. After he had been given notice to quit, he waited on Gibson and asked for payment for his topdvfessing work as agreed upon. While on the place witness said he cleaned out. the main Wain and Improved the fences. He also cleared oft' all the blackberry. The main drain was grown over with blackberry to hedge height when he took over. Defendant said he bought the two milk cans, one of which plaintiff now claimed, when he took over. He produced a receipt for them. Questioned with regard to the manure in the shed' witness said this had been placed there by a previous soldier settler who had abandoned the farm. It had got wet and had deteriorated and required a pick to break it up. Cross-examined by Mr Clayton Greene, defendant denied that he had told one McKenzie that he was being 1 given a truck-load of manure and that all he had to do was to put it on. It was not true, either, that he had told McKenzie that he (defendant) had a “good thing on."

.Judgment for Defendant. Robert R. Lovegrove,* house decorator, said he did some work at the house and cowshed at Gibson’s farm at Motumaoho. Gibson made the arrangements personally and drew up a contract for it. Gibson then mentioned that Young had leased the farm. Witness told him he was lucky to get a practical man like Young on the place. Gibson commented that Young had got a good deal, as he (Gibson), expected to get nothing off the farm for three years. He also said he was topdressing the place. John E. Leeson, farmer, Motumaoho, said the farm, when defendant took it over, was in a very bad slate. It was overrun with blackberries and there were no culverts or proper gates. When witness heard It had been leased at £l2O a year he remarked that it was too much. He thought £1 an acre the full value of the lease. When Young left the place the blackberries had been cleared and the main drain cleaned out. The pastures had benefited from the topdressing and draining.

In answer to Mr Clayton Greene, witness denied that he had ever negotiated for the property for himself. Giving judgment, His Worship said the case was one which depended largely upon the credibility of the parties and their witnesses. Young gave his evidence plainly, frankly and straight-forwardly. On the other hand, Gibson was an old man and his story in the box gave one the impression that his memory was unreliable. His Worship preferred to take defendant s story of what the arrangement was. With regard to the counterclaim His Worship considered the charge ‘ for work done reasonable. Judgment was given for defendant on the claim, and on the counterclaim for the full amount claimed. At Mr Clayton Greene’s request His Worship fixed security for appeal.