Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

A 1 HOTEL CASE.

ARGUMENT BEFORE FUII COURT. <?KESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON.

Tho Full Court was occupied this morning with the consideration of the case of Beatli and Co., Ltd., drapers, of Christchurch, against Walter Henry Overton, of Christchurch, liotelkeeper. The case was heard in Christ church on April 6th, and now came before the Full Court by way of a case 6tated. The plaintiff company, in its statement of claim, alleges that the defendant has committed certain breaches of covenants contained in the lease of the A 1 Hotel, of which plaintiff is owner and defendant the lessee and licensee. The breaches complained of are failure to repair and keep clean the premises, whereby plaintiff alleges the license of the hotel lias been endangered. Plaintiff asks for possession of the hotel and mesne profits. The defendant, in his statement of defence, denize that he committed any breach of the covenants of the lease, but askod for relief against forfeiture should tho Court find thati breaches have been committed.

Mr M. Myers, in opening tho case for the plaintiff, maintained that t'he evidence at the trial clearly proved breaches of the covenants of the lease, and that tho license had been imperilled thereby. He also stated that, the Healt!i Department had not eonw t-oo well cut of the proceedings, as they apparently • complied -with requests by the licensee as to tho nature of tha report thev should make concerning tho necessity for repairs and rebuilding tho hotel.

Mr M. J. Gresson, for the defendant, maintained that since 1917 the question of rebuilding the hotel had been under consideration, and that tlio chief objections made to the hotel by the Licensing Committee were really matters of structural alteration, for which the landlord, and not defendant, was liable. He admitted certain minor preaches of the covenant by the defendant, but argued that these had been waived. Mr Gresson had not concluded his argument when the Court adjourned till Monday.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19210416.2.23

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17121, 16 April 1921, Page 6

Word count
Tapeke kupu
327

A1 HOTEL CASE. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17121, 16 April 1921, Page 6

A1 HOTEL CASE. Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17121, 16 April 1921, Page 6

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert