A Peculiar Case.

Manawatu Herald, 19 January 1899, Page 2

A Peculiar Case.

> 0 " MR DONALD GRANT IN COURT. 1 At the Magistrate's Court this morni ing, says the " Standard " of Tuesday, [ before Mr A. Greenfield, S.M., Donald • Grant sued Fred. Pirani for £j js, | double rent from January ist to 17th, . and possession of the building known , as the Standard Ofiice. Mr E. G. Jellicoe appeared for plaintiff, and Mr 1 Ji P. Innes for the defendant. The ' defendant held a lease of the premises 1 from the plaintiff for four years, ending s January ist, 1899, at a rental of £1 ios [ a week, and did not give up possession , at the end of that term because new premises being built for them next to the Borough Council ofiice were not } fit for occupation. He had endeaf vored, unsuccessfully, to get permisi sion from Mr Grant to remain until 1 31 st January, on paying double rent, f but Mr Grant had absolutely refused a r day's grace, and had threatened to throw the machinery and plant of the , office out into the road if he did not give up possession. ' Mr Innes aplied for an adjournment to enable Mr Bell to produce a certain >. document, and to get Mr T. L. Buick's , evidence, but it was decided to hear the plaintiffs case. Fred. Pirani, called by plaintiff, deposed that he was the lessee of the premises, and that he had been unable to remove the Standard machinery at the end of the lease owing to his new premises not being completed. He was prepared to vacate the premises as soon as possible, and had offered to do so by the 31st January. He thought three weeks would be necessary now. He required Mr Bell to produce the lease [Mr Jellicoe here produced it, and said it had been given to him by Mr Bell], and he wanted Mr Buick's evidence to prove certain material statements made by Mr Grant to him and in his presence. He admitted refusing to vacate the Premises at Mr Grant's request, because Mr Grant was asking an impossibility. He was quite agreeable to pay double rent, to compensate Mr Grant for any inconvenience he may have been put to. He declined to repeat what Mr Grant had said when he asked for possession, but being pressed by Mr Jellicoe, stated that Mr Grant had said that he would not do the "dirty work" himself, but would get Mr Jellicoe to do it. He believed that Mr Grant's action was solely dictated by spite, and with a desire to discredit a candidate he was opposing at the next general election. Mr D. Grant deposed that the premises were being damaged while in Mr Pirani's custody. He desired the premises to be vacated directly the lease terminated, when he learned defendant would take other premises. The further occupation of the building was prejudicial to his interests, as he could not let them, as he was going to Australia next week. By Mr Innes— He. would not take double rent for another three weeks, but wanted the premises at once. He could let them directly defendant was out of possession. He was going to occupy two rooms himself, and as Mr Pearce had taken a partner in, he was going to occupy part. Mr Innes pointed out that his Worship had the power to give the time asked for on reasonable cause,, being shown, and asked that an order be made for delivering the premises at the end of three weeks, or in the alternative an adjournment should be granted. Mr Jellicoe asked that no personal element should be allowed to influence his Worship, but that the matter should be decided on their legal rights. Mr Greenfield stated that he could not consider the time necessary to erect a new building, but simply how long it would take to vacate the premises. He would therefore give judgment for the amount claimed and order possession to be given on 31st January, at 3 p.m., with Court costs, and solicitor's fee £2 23.