APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 171, 15 April 1921, Page 7

APPEAL COURT

WAR-TIME LEGISLATION

PERIOD OF AWARD DISPUTED An. appeal, the result of which will materially affect interpretations of the Salo of Liquor Restriction Act, 1917, was heard in ths Appeal Court yesterday. On the benoh were: His Honaur Mr. Justice Sim (President), Their Honours Mr. Justice Hosking, Mr. Justice Herdman, Air. Justice Stringer, and Mr. Justice Salmond. The case had relation to an award made under the terms of the Act, and the Court was asked to determine tho period over which the award operated. The appeal was made by Quill, Morris, and Co., Ltd;, wine and spirit merchants, of Christchurch (Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Air. W. J. Sim), the respondents being William Henrjr Grantley Norton, auctioneer, James Cecil Palmer, farmer, of Kaikoura, and Cecil George M'Kellar, accountant, of Christchurch, carrying on business as the "Shand Block Syndicate” (Mr. M. J. Greeson). The basis of the appeal wae the judgment of Hie Honour Mr. Justice Herdman, relative to a disagreement as to 'the terms of the lease of Shade’s Hotel (Christchurch), the respondents being the plaintiffs in the original action. The faete of tho case are that in 1915, the plaintiffs leased the aforesaid hotel for a period of seven years, at a rental of jCIO'3O per annum. On February 25, 1918, both'parties arrived at an agreement for a reduction of .£325 per annum in the rental; under the Early Closing Act of 1917, tho reduction to last during the term of the lease, or during the continuance of tho war, and for a period of six months thereafter—"whichever period is the shorter.” Tho original rates agreed on were demanded by the plaintiffs as from July 10, 1920. but the defendants refused to pay, claiming that they were ♦till entitled to the benefits of the special provision in the lease affecting its period. In his judgment, Mr. Justice Herdman said he had no doubt that the arrangement arrived at was made on the evident assumption that 6 o’clock, closing would cease when the war was ended. However, in his opinion, there could be no relief to tho defendants on that score. It wps clear that the defendants had contracted to pay a reduced rental, during the term of the lease and continuance of the war; but there had been nothing to prevent them, had the parties »o desired, to provide that the reduced rent should be payable daring the continuance of the lease or "so long as the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act should remain in force.” This provision had not been made. As it was, six months after the official expiration of the war, the plaintiffs were entitled to the rent under the original lease. Mr. Skerrett, in the course of argument, submitted that the lessors offered to accept a reduction under section t of the Act of) 1917, and. this was accepted by conduct. There existed no statutory provision demanding a written contract. In that case, the only question was, whether or not on award made under. the Sale of Liquor Restriction Act continued during the extended period of the Act, but was limited to the duration of the existing lease. Mr. Grcsson considered that the award continued as indicated, and therefore the reduction under the contract would of necessity continue until the expiry of the lease. The Court reserved its decision.