QUESTION OF VALUES.

Wairarapa Age, 11 March 1927, Page 3

QUESTION OF VALUES.

QUEEN STREET PROPERTY INVOLVED. APPLICATION TO VARY AN AWARD. Patrick Hamill, lessee of a property in Queen Street, Masterton, from the Wellington Diocesan Board of Trustees, applied in the Supreme Court yesterday for a motion to set aside or vary an award under the Arbitration Act in respect to the rent fixed by an umpire on the property for a second period of twenty-one years.

Mr. A. W. Blair (Wellington) and Mr H. R. Biss appeared for the applicant, and Mr. T. F. Martin (Wellington) for the Diocesan Board.

Mr. Blair, in outlining his ease, said Hamill became lessee in 1905 of a. property in Queen Street. The lease was for 42 years, the rent being fixed for the first 21 years, but not for the second 21. Machinery, however, was included in the lease for fixing the second 21 years’ rent. Plaintiff contended that the second term’s rent was to bo arbitrated upon while the defendants hold that the lessee had no right to be heard when the rent was decided upon, the board considering it to be fixed bj appraisement. The arbitrators or the umpire when fixing the rent for the second period had not notified either party to attend. The valuers for Hamill and the board (Messrs. G. W. Sellar and J. B. Keith respectively) had failed to agree upon the rent so they appointed Mr. W. H. -Cruickshank as umpire. He had fixed the rent for the second 21 years at £209 per annum. Counsel held that the decision had been arrived at upon a wrong basis. Under the terms of the lease Hamill had to keep the buildings in repair, replace them in the event of fire, and at the expiry of the lease the building became the property of the Board. This being so, the value of the building had to be taken into consideration. If the building was worth £3OOO this had to be regarded really as portion of the rent, as the building eventually became the property of the landlord. His Honour interjected that the life of such a building had to be taken into consideration. At the expiry of 42 years it migHt be so delapidated that it would be an encumbrance and not an asset to the board. Mr. Biss addressed the Court on the points of arbitration. He submitted that the valuers should have inquired regarding the terms of the lease before adjudicating on the matter. Hamill did not know what was going on and as soon as he heard, he objected to Mr. Cruckshank being appointed as umpire. This was after the rent had actually been arrived at, but before Hahiill had been advised of the decision. All the plaintiff sought was the opportunity of placing the eortect position before the arbitrators.

Mr. Martin addressed the Court at length, quoting authorities qn points of law and the question of waiving an award. :

His Honour reserved his decision,