KAIKOURA ROADS.

Marlborough Daily Times, Volume II, Issue 121, 18 May 1880, Page 3

KAIKOURA ROADS.

To the Editor. Sir, —Permit me to call attention through your columns to the very bad state of the main road in the Kaikoura District, and to the urgent need of having them repaired. In consequence of their really disgraceful condition, I recently met with an accident whilst riding on horseback with the mails, about eight miles south of the Clarence, and was confined to my house, and unable to pursue my business for sometime. People are ready enough to complain if the mail is not punctually delivered at Kaikoura and along the line, but in order for this to be done, and for the safety of life and limb—not mine only, but those of all other travellers —the Kaikoura Board should be made to do something to make this road at least passable. At the same time as above mentioned, a horse belonging to Mr Blick, my employer, got its fore foot jammed between two stones, fell over, and was hurt across the loins, and will never be able to get up again: this animal was worth at least £2O, and seemed to be dying as I passed by. The overland journey from the Waiau to Kaikoura can only be undertaken at a risk of accident, which might altogether be avoided if those under whom the management and control of the roads rest, would do their duty. Trusting that now public attention has been called to the matter, something will be done to remedy the present dangerous and neglected state of things.—l am, etc., William H. Lovell, Mail Carrier. Blenheim, May 17th, 18S9. LANDLORD AND TENANT. To the Editor. Sir, —Referring to the important case of Jocob Joseph v. Belgrave, heard lately in the Christchurch District Court, before his Honor Judge Ward, and upon which an able leader appeared in the Otago 1 fitness of the Stli inst., it would be well to point out that his Honor’s judgment in this case has no effect upon the common restricting covenant in leases against assigning or underletting, and that it only applies to cases where the covenant is coupled with a proviso that tho landlord shall not object to a solvent or respectable snb-teuant or assignee. The hardship under the covenant minus the proviso still exists, and puts such a .power into the hands of landlords, that I think requires controlling or modifying by legislative interference,

Of course this is no so patent here as in Dunedin, Wellington, and Christchurch, and other large cities where business sites command such excessive rentals. Often enough in my experience have I known a landlord demand and receive a whole years’ rent, in one case as much as £IOO, as a premium for consenting to an assignment, or if not demanding a money consideration. Then the tenant has been compelled to make considerable improvements in the buildings, which otherwise he would not have had to do, or else to submit to the imposition of an additional restrictive covenant. All this time it must bo borne in mind that the tenant is always liable to his landlord for the whole term, and upon all the covenants, notwithstanding any assignment. Of course a covenant like the one I have referred to, practially puts the tenant into the hands of his landlord, and in the event of the latter being an unscrupulous man, it it not difficult to see what legalised injustice may be done ; as after the tenant has expended bis all in building, improving and making the property fit for liis particular business, he cannot sell or under-let (no matter however substantial the person proposed to be substituted may be), without his landlord’s consent, and obviouslyin such cases he is at his landlord’s mercy. It is quite usclosss saying that a tenant, (should not accept a lease, with such a covenant, as unfortunately it has become so common that it is hard to get a lease in any of the Colonial towns without it. Besides this, nearly all existing long term leases (some of them extremely valuable) have this covenant. Of course, any measure tending to alter such a state of things as this must be a remedial one, and I would suggest that legislative interference should take some such direction as this :—(1.) That in all leases of over say, £SO per annum rental, upon the tenant proposing his sub-lessee or assignee, the landlord to be bound to intimate to the former within a certain specified period his objection to the person so proposed, such objection being limited to the question of solvency or respectability, and sucli intimation being of course privileged. (2.) The issue as to the facts, if disputed, to be tried by a jury of three, sworn not to divulge the evidence, the party failing on such issue to pay all costs. (3.) That the evidence to be led upon the trial of such issue be, if necessary, privileged also. (4.) Tiiat the words “ respectable ” and “ solvent ” be given for this purpose a legal interpretation. (5.) That if the landlord fails or refuses to intimate his objection within such period that the tenams may register in the Deeds or Transfer Office, as the case may be, a memorial of the request and proposition to the landlord (which shall save breach of the covenant) and proceed as if such consent had been duly obtained, or in ease such issue be in his favor, may register a certificate of same with the like effect. ((!.) These provisions to apply to leases already in existence. I am of course aware that this is merely a crude suggestion and am prepared for some objections, but as the magnitude of the evil is only known to those persons who have experience of the working of such covenants, I would add that I shall only be too happy to receive their suggestions with a view to the whoie matter being incorporated in a Bill to be submitted to the Government for consideration this session. —I am, &c. Michael Hart.