TAUWHAREPARAE LEASES.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2596, 2 September 1909, Page 7

TAUWHAREPARAE LEASES.

THE LESSEES’ POSITION.

A REQUEST FOR LITIGATION

At yesterday’s meeting of the Harbor Board the question of the Tauwhareparae leases, about which so much lias been heard recently, was brought under the notice of members by the following letter, which was received from Messrs deLautour, Barker and Stock

Iho Board’s tenants have for some time been considering the- position they are in as regards, the terms of renewal originally granted to them under the existing leases. The documents are not m all respects as clear as could be desired, and it is thought best to apply to the Supreme Court to define the mutual rights of the lessor and the lessees by declaratory judgment. As von are aware certain notices * have to he given by tho tenants and steps taken by the Board at least twelve months before the expiration of the term, and it is thought it will not be prudent to delay getting the procedure which has to be followed definitely determined. The application will be made to- a Judge in the ordinary course, who will no doubt direct your Board to be served with notice. We would suggest that as the matter must be of considerable importance to the Board and to the ratepayers, as well as to the tenants, it would be desirable that, subject to the Judge’s approval, the application should' bo taken direct into the Court of Appeal, and be dealt with in Wellington in October next. We would ask your Board to consent to this course. The tenants have all agreed to be bound by the proceedings to be taken in the present application. The Board, by consenting to the removal asked for, will therefore have the advantage of obtaining a final decision binding itself and all its tenants at the least possible expense.” Attached to the letter was a summons between Frank Brayton Barker and Percival Barker, of Gisborne, sheep farmers,' plaintiffs) and the Gisborne Harbor Board, defendant. Plaintiffs claimed to have acquired the right of renewal, and the interpretation sought by declaratory order of the Court is based on the following points: (a) The rights of the lessees, at tlieir election or otherwise, to a renewal or renewals of their term of lease. (b) How and at what time or times, and subject to what liabilities, the rights of the .lessees so electing to obtain a renewal or renewals of their term of lease are to be exercised.

(c) Upon what basis the amount of rental for the renewed term or terms is to be fixed.

(d) The mutual relations of the lessor and the lessees upon the expiration of the first term of lease so far as is necessary for determination of the aforesaid inquiries. And for- such other declaratory order in the promises as in the circumstances mav be just.

The Chairman said that apparently some doubts existed as to the method of determining the rentals for the second period of the leases. He thought the course proposed in the letter just read would be the better one in the long run, as thus less expense would be entailed than by bringing it before the Supreme Court in Gisborne, from where it would almost certainly have to go to Court of Appeal. Mr. Lysnar said that the position was really a covert move on the part of those interested, and there was probably a great deal more underneath. It was evidently a move to get some advantage for the tenants, who really wanted to know on. what basis the.y would have to pay rental in, the event of renewal. There was no question at all as to the tenants’ right of renewal, ■ which was as clear as English could make it. What the tenants apparently wanted to do was to take' the value of improvements off before the new value would be assessed. He would urge the Board to take a firm stand in the matter, and not facilitate litigation. The whole affair was go plain that it recpiired no originating summons, and it would be very wrong of them, as a Board, to incur the great expense of sending the matter to the Appeal Court. There was a good deal under the request, and lie felt- that they should reply to the letter stating that the matter was so plain that no explanation was required. What the Board wanted to do was to see that no wrong value was placed, and he would urge that they take no action in the matter, but let it go before the Supreme Court first. He moved that the Board do not accede to the request contained in the/ letter, and that the Board’s solicitor be instructed to defend the summons in the lower Court. Mr. G. J. Parker, seconded the motion, remarking that it appeared to him foolish to go to the. Appeal Court straight away. The Chairman suggested leaving the matter in the hands of the Finance

Committee to confer with tho Board’s solicitor. Mr. Kells agreed with the view that tho Board’s solicitor should be consulted before any action was taken in the matter. To a lay mind, it did not appear that there was anything to go to Court for. Mr. Harris said that ho sincerely hoped that there would bo no committee work on the question. He urged that nothing should be done that was not open to the press and the public. The Chairman: Mr. Harris appears to think that there is something, to hide. }

Mr. Harris: I know there is nothing to hide, and I want the ratepayers to know all about these leasee. 1 hope the press will always give a full report of anything connected with them. _ The Hon. Captain Tucker said that he could not see how their . position could be jeopardised by the case being taken straight to the Appeal Court, as they would be taken there sooner or later in any case. As an amendment he would move that the whole Board, in committee, meet tho _ Board’s solicitor, and consult with him before taking any action. Mr. Lysnar impressed on members tlie necessity of fighting the case step bv sten, and not leaving the matter nltogetW for the decision of the Board’s solicitor. As it was, he would withdraw his motion, and second the amendment. The amendment, on being put to the meeting, was carried unanimously, and the Board will meet and consult with its solicitor on Wednesday next at 2 p.m.