TO THE EDITOR.

Patea Mail, 23 December 1880, Page 3

TO THE EDITOR.

[Correspondents arc invited to discuss matters of: public interest with fairness and brevity ; this journal being an impartial medium of discussion and advocacy for all affairs relating to the County of L’atca.] DISPUTED TEXT. Sin, —In reference to the action brought by Mr llowitt for recovery of rent for the section leased on my behalf, I wish to state certain facts which would have been brought before the Court, if my solicitor had not been called away to Ha worn. The two main facts arc that Mr llowitt continued to use the section during four months after the date from which he claimed rent, and that the date from which he does claim rent is more than two weeks before the date on which 1 opened nogoeiations for the lease. 1 spoke to Mr llowitt as to leasing this section about the last week in August; yes he claims rent from August -Ith. When we agreed about the lease, he had a stable on it, and he instructed me, as a builder, to remove it to his own section, to erect a new hack to the stable, and make other alterations. During this time, the Town Board had nut sanctioned the tranfer of lease, and did not do so till nine or ten weeks after our first verbal agreement. I could not build on the section till the transfer was completed, and 1 cannot bo said to have bad the section properly transt ferred to me until the Town Board sanctioned the transfer. Xo man of business would build on leased land until his lease was legally complete. Another point is that 1 purchased timber for removing and re-erecting his stable, and having put that timber on the ground, with 3,000 feet of other timber for my own building, Mr llowitt came to me on the 2nd December, and said he would seize the lot and would not allow me to remain on the land, because 31 days had expired since the second quarter’s rent became due in advance. I replied to him that I had purchased timber for his stable, and that there would then be a balance of several pounds in my favor. He insisted on my leaving the place, or he would make it warm for me. I took advice, and upon that I ordered him to clear all oif the land belonging to him by the 4th December. He did not do so, hut lie issued a summons a fortnight aftei wards claiming nine months’ rent. Upon roccivng that, I ordered him, at my solicitor’s advice, to clear out of the section immediately. Ho has continued to use the stable on lids section up to Friday last, yet ho charges mo with rent for the whole section, and charges not only for the whole time fjvjgi the date I first bargained for the but actually for at least two weeks before that date And this is the claim he laid before the Magistrates to-day, and on which, through the absence of my solicitor, and without anyone to explain my case to the Court, they gave a verdict for the whole claim of £9 and costs. As to not bringing the deed of lease before tlio Court to-day, I received notice to produce the deed a few minutes before the ease came on. My solicitor had told me on Saturday that he wanted the deed, and would get it. The deed is therefore

m his possession at Hawcra, so far as I know. As to Mr Ilowitt's sfahlc on my section, he first raised the difficulty by seizing tiie timber I had purchased fur it ; hut I am still willing to let him remove the stable off my section, and if he thinks or has said otherwise, it is not correct, as I have not offered the least objection to his removing it, but have ordered him to doit. I think the public will see I have been put to inconvenience, expense, and delay through no fault of my own ; and I am still willing to carry out the terms of the lease, and offered to pay the whole claim before ihc ease came on, if only the time were deducted during which I did not got possession under the lease. I regret that these facts were not stated in Court, hut my solicitor being absent I could do nothing hut ask for an adjournment, which was not granted.—l am, &e.i J. A. lIoUOUK/. Pa tea, 21st.