SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXXXV, Issue 214, 6 October 1903, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL bllii->Ud. j (Liet'ora His Houor Mr JiTstico Edwards.) Mosd.w, Oct her i'i, HIGH SCHOOL, LKASES. Dininl J. Hughes v. tho New Plymouth High Scho-.l ].( xird. Edward v. S'aiuo. Th».-o were c«cs m which p'aintifT* s sigh,; an order (if the Court to compel ■ lie defendant Bond to grant them new leases of certain lands hold by (hum at M».nai:i, Waimate Plains, or in tho alternative piy atim-i for improvements effdcjed on the said lunds. Dr. Findlay. with him >tr Wai.-h, H twera, for plaintiff, and Mr S,imu3), with Mr Meyer* (B*ll, Ouliy, and Meyeis) for dofaniUi.tii. Boh ess were tulien togotlior. Di. Findlay, in opftnicifj his caw, said it was admitted that plaintiffs were lessees for many years under the High. School Beard, Newing holding 300 acres and Hughes 200 acres, Newing from 1884 and Hughes on part of it since 1889. It was aleo admitted that the title was vested in the defendant Board, the question being the rights conferred on Newing and Hughes by section 18 of the Reserves and other lands Disposal Act 1901. The Board as a leasing authority under the Act of 1887 had power to do certain things which he detailed, amongst other things, to accept surrender of a lease aDd to grant a new l<?as9. It was admitted there was no right to improvements under the old leases, but there were special circumstances and the Legislature decided to grant the lessees \he value of their improvements. Section 18 of the Act of 1901 did this. It would be seen that the sole object of the Act was to give the lessees the value of their improvements, but the Board could get out of tho immediate piyment for the improvements by granting a new lease for a longer or shorter period, not exceeding 21 years, with or without right of renewal. Dr. Findlay contended that the Board could grant such lease, the rent to be fixed by arbitration, and the improvements ( o be p:iid for at the end of tho term. He then read the correspondence which had taken place. He also read the defence filed by the Board, which brkfly was that the Board felt the Act was too vague to justify it - , as trustees, to proceed without an interpretation thereof by the Court. Dr. Findlay then dealt; with tho v;ilue of the improvements and claimed that in the case of Newing tlwy amounted to £I2OO, and in that of Hughes toXBOO. He then prcceaded to quote authorities in support of his contention, and contended that the Court could not go behind the S'ature, Mr Simutl uaid he only wished to say that under the Act of 1887, the Board had not power to grant a new base.

Dr. Findlay admitted this, but held ,that the intention of the Legislature was to give the lessees tha value of their improvements or a new lease. His Honor said that as far as ho could see the Act; of 1887 gave the Board power, but conferred no rights. Dr. Findlay went on to argue that both parties were protected by the provision regarding the arbitration, e.s thf rant had to be fixed by the arbitrators oniy af-er the Board had fixed the term and condition of the lease. Hia Honor: Do you mean to ssy that the Board ought to grant a new lease before the rent was fixed ? Dr. Findlay replied in the affirmative, and quoted a case where the rent was fixed on the price of wheat. He also quoted other authorities in support of this view, and contended th.it both sides were bound by the arbitration, so that he did not see the diftjrulty the Board professed to sea. True' the Board had to pay at the end of the lease the value of the improvements which were to be fixed by arbitration. He submitted that a statutory, duty was imposed on the Board, which, so far, had adopted a position of masterly inactivity, and should be compelled to elect to take some definite course. He understood the Board did not want to escape their obligations, but desired to get the Court to define the nature of these obligations under section 18. Supposing, however, the Court could not take that course, there was tha alternative which the Board must adopt. If, then, the Board could not see }ts way' to grant a new lease, they could pay compensation for improvements, as to wbicb, however, the Board claimed to be in a difficulty. Mr Samuel said tbe difficulty was to know what was meant by improvements. Was it tbe improvements put on by tbe lessees, or improvements which had bean bought by them ? His Honor said that at first sight it soemed to him that the Statute h?d given Nowing and Hughes something which belonged to the Board. Mr Samuel pointed out that the form improvements wad used in the Ac sovaral timss, and a difficulty arose as to haw it was to be construed. Moreever, the Board had to be careful not to lose the right of election. How could the arbitrators assess the value of implements unless they know what was to be included in the term "improvements " as expressed in the Act ? ! His Honor said thi clause in the Act was very extraordinary. It was a serious thing to take the property of a public body by force, and then eay, in <• fleet, "You benefit in some other way." No doubt they were entitled to the improvements at the time the Statuto was passed, but thera seemed to be room for a very wide divergence of opinion. It soerned to him 'th*t the besS course for the parties would have ! been to state a case for the Court of Appaisl, Considerable argument ensued as to | the construction to bo placed on the term improvements. Dr. Findley hull tha*: phuntifl's were entitled to be paid for all improvements which they had m ide or acquired by purchasa from their predecessors ; and for any they may mike during the currency of the new lease. The Board, of oourse, in the event of a new not being granted, could pay cash for ' the improvements, and tbe question would then arise if they were entitled \ to assess tbe value now or at the tima i

tha Act was passed. In view of all the difficulties, he hold that they should assess the valuation at the end of the new lease. On the question of cilliDg evidence, Dr, Findley said he did not propose they should. Mr Samuel said the case might be treated as a special one, as they were really asking the direction of the Court. His Honor: Are tha parties agreed that the Board still has the right of election ? Dr. Findlay said they ware agreed that the Board still had the right of election, and up to the present had not

(xorcised its right. ..Si' Siuiuel (li'<n recited tho Act whiuh ln..sn <■•;:,>irod. It st-itud tin', Nowing and limbos h"-.v£ti« s,i int. <.';itisi,t.Tut?ln Kiv.as Wore oi'.tklcd ty tho vJu.: of thf.ir impi'oV"rtMn(s. Although at tli -t time, ptaintiflfs were »ut entitled to any improvflwon's, yfc fcneNtMute risen- d ui thorn us thciv improvomon'*, aud itw i; most difficult to know when and on v;liat basis the improveineD.R word t In paid for. Ho hold tint ilrs wn? r i 'U«'i a now principle i ! « l*fcis: itur . 'Mo further urg'd th-t sha Uif;h School Act gave the Bond no pon»;.r tookm iL ! wish thy tarms of the Act of 1901, Ithny having no funds for the purpos . 'Ho wiiot on to contend that the r<f. voiK'iJ to the improv. merits wera to vague as to make i<; impossible for thr Uo-ird to "Ifis't which t;oiKßa to tak-.. Af'er dwelling on thia p dut at con Ridemblfi l»n:;th, Mr Suriuel said he was quita prepared to co operate wl : h '.h'i our «iie in (iwfr.ir.g »viw; w,-:s necesiiry to t>iva U'gisla ivo effect to whit ths Oouct decreed. After further discussion, it was agread thit the parties should pin iti stating a case for the Oourt.

Mr S*muol then uddres'ed the Court as to the advisability of limiting tho sum to be paid tar iinprivements mide during the currency of the new lease, otherwise exhorbitant dem mds might be mads.

Mr Myars said that if this was an ordinary contract, it would at once have been admitted thas the Court could not enforce it. because it was so so vague. It was only the force of the statute which compelled the- Caurs to enforce the contract. That which belonged to the Board was taken away and given to the plaintiffs in an entirely ex parte manner, and under thesa circumstances any ambiguity should go to the benefit of the defendant Board, eo as to minimise the injustice to the Board. In order to coustrue the section, the Court had to go back to the condition of things prior to the statute, and taking this view it was clew that all they were entitled to was the improvements effected by themselves at the time the Act was passed. Mr Myres qu )ted authorities at considerable length. Dr Findlay, in answer to Mr Samuel, sud the value and nature of the improvements would be decided by what were reasonable improvements according to the class of land improved. He dwelt on the fairness of tho Statute, and said he would call evidence to show that this matter was fully invalidated, and that tho tenants wera justly entitled to what the Legislature gtvo them.

OoacFel then agreed, o'n tho suggestion of His Honor, to retire and consult upon the question* to bc>suV;mrtel for His Honor's consideration, vvnen the fo'lowing order was mutually agrerd upon: - " That all questions involved in and arising out of the statements of claim and defence, and the agreements and admissions made by counsel be argued b°fore the Oiurt before the trial of the aation, and that the trial of the action do stand adjourned pending the decision rf the C>urt, the question of costs to be reserved."

The agreements and admissions above rpferred to are : | (1) Admission by plain'iff's counsel that the his no 1 ; lost, any right it h».d under Section 18 of the Aot of 1901 to eleat whether to grant a new leise or pay compensation to plaintiffs (2) Agreement by defendant's counsel to take no objection on the ground of the action being prematurely brought.

(3) Leave to amend statements of claim and dafenoa if neoessary,