SIX YEARS' RENT

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 57, 30 November 1937, Page 9

SIX YEARS' RENT

Napier Park Racing Club To Pay J. y. BROWN WINS CLAIM On the strength of the Statute which makes a debt of more than eix years' standing • nnrecoverable, the Napier Park Kacing Club escaped having to pay John Yigor Brown the eleven years' and two months' rent he clainied in respect of their carrying on their business in his offiees in Herschell street, Napier, during the time that 3. E. Gleadow, manager of an insurance business for the plaintiff, was secvetary of the club. At the conclusion oi of the hearihg of the claim in thiA' Magistrate's Court at Napier yesterday afternoon, Mr J. Miller, S.M., found that defendants were liablo for six years' rent at the rate of £25 per annum, subject to a possible reduetion of '20 per cent. if defendants' counsel eaa satisfy the Magistrate that such a reduetion is justified under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act. Costs will be assessed according to the final • terms of settlement. Mr A. L. Martin appeared for plaintiff, and Mr L. Willis for the defendants. Plaintiff 's case" was reported yesterday. "If I may be permilted to use a racing term, ' ' said Mr Willis in stating the case for the defence, "I would suggest that this action was bred by Vindictiveness out of Spite. The plaintiff has failed to* negotiate many oi t"he hurdles on the course, and his joekey has weighed in light." Counsel went on to say that the eommittee of the club was convinced that the claim was not a proper claim, but a vengeful one prompted by their having dared to ask their former secretary to resign. It would appear quite plain that both Gleadow and the plaintiff were bitter against the club, a fact which must effect the credibility of their evidenee. On the other hand there was no personal interest on the side of the club. Gounsel submitted that, as there was no actual occupation of the office by the club, there was no actual tenancj, Further, if theTe had been no claim for rent for six years or more, a claim for rent now should not be upheld. Counsei pointed* out that it had been "admitted in evidenee that Gleadow, although using the office for a business of which the plaintiff was the princlpal (the defence insisted they were partners), had been permitted to .use the office for any private work he ejiose to do, so that it was, to all intents and purposes, his office. The defence offered to call evidenee to prove that Gleadow had told members of the eommittee that there would be no more rent to pay after the -£37 10/- paid in 1927. The Magistrate pointed out that this would not weigh heavily uniess it could be proved that Gleadow made such a statement as the agenf. of the plaintiff. In the absence pf such proof, he must ffind in accordance with the evidenee before Mm. The fact that rent had been paid for ten years from 1913 to 1923 was #not tfenied, ahd proved thut an agreement to pay rent had existed. Ih. tke absence of any definite proot that that agreement had been terniinated, the claim which "looked suspieious" would be upheld, "but in view of the invocation • of the Statute "by the defence, only six years' rent would bo awarded. Mr Willin elaimed a rednetion of 20 per - cent. under the National Expenditure Adjustment Act, but it was agreed tp settle that question afterwards, and judgment was entered in the terms set out above.