ACTION OVER LEASE

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1034, 26 July 1930, Page 1

ACTION OVER LEASE

ALLEGED AGREEMENT DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE Press Association WELLINGTON, Friday. The hearing- of the case in which the non-fulfilment of contracts to lease a portion of certain premises in Lome Street, Auckland was alleged against the Lawrence and Hanson Electrical Company, Limited, by Ilallcnstein Brothers, Limited, was continued before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court today. Plaintiff asked the court to order defendant specifica'lly to perform the agreement which it was alleged had been entered into, and to accept the lease and possession of the premises. Alternatively, plaintiff claimed judgment for £946 9s 8d as damages, with costs. Giving evidence for the defence, C. J. Hanson, formerly branch manager of the defendant company at Auckland, said the rent for the premises in plaintiff’s building was always paid to Midlane Brothers, the previous lessees, until the latter’s lease expired. No arrangement was then made about a new lease by witness. One morning he found a copy of a proposed lease on his desk. As he had no power to act in the matter he sent the document on to the Wellington office. Witness denied having told Fels, the managing director for plaintiff, that it was intended to take a lease for five years. Witness said he was fully authorised to give notice of intention to quit. Cross-examined, witness denied that he had paid rates as well as rent for the premises, because it was a condition of the lease with plaintiff. Pie admitted that he did not tell anyone he was not liable for rent or rates, and said he was instructed to pay rent and rates provided the amounts were correct. He believed that, apart from any arrangement, he had to pay rates on any building he was occupying. Henry Francis Vickery, New Zealand managing director of defendant company, said he did not sign the proposed lease, as lie considered the rent was too high.' His firm had remained in plaintiff’s building after Midlane’s lease expired because they liked the place, but at the time were looking out for more suitable premises. The rent had been high from the beginning. In reply to his Honour, witness said he was aware that the Auckland branch was paying £SOO a year rent. He was also aware that it was stipulated, when the Auckland branch got the premises, that there should be right of renewal for five years. The court adjourned until tomorrow morning.