Dispute between Landlord and Lessee.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 596, 18 April 1891, Page 3

Dispute between Landlord and Lessee.

At the B.M. Court on Thursday the case E. P. Joyce v. J. Finlay was heard, being a claim for £5O. Mr Finn, with Mr Jones, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr DeLautour, with Mr Skeet, for defendant. All witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Finn explained that the action was for a breach of covenant in a lease to repair certain premises. The plaintiff gave evidence that he was the owner of the British Empire Hotel. The lease produced was entered into between him and defendant on March 1,1886, for five years. He had occasionally been in the house, and could see any improvements made in the downstairs portion of the house. The correspondence bearing on the subject was read, and the witness stated that with Mr Finlay’s solicitor he had inspected the work on the night that possession was given up. The house had not been wholly repapered during the last year of the term, and when with Mr Skeet he pointed this out. He gave defendant written notice that he would have the repairs done, and hold the former responsible. He had to get the bouse put in repair for the present tenant. Mr Dickson, but he had not yet completed all the repairs. To Mr DeDautour: Did not refuse to take delivery until the repairs were done, although he pointed out that the paper was not properly done. So far as he was aware Mr Dirkson did not take possession before the term of lease had actually expired. The terms of Mr Dickson’s lease were settled beforehand, and there was no gap in the rent between the tenants. Declined to say what was paid for the goodwill. To Mr Finn : The clause in the lease about papering was cut ont, because he understood that Mr Finlay would do the papering. Mr DeLautour wanted the lease put in, but Mr Joyce declined, saying that they would “ have to lonk the lease all through to find the clause, and then they would not find it, because it had been cut out." (Laughter.) W. J. Quigley, architect, gave evidence that £27 12s 8d would be required to put the house in the condition stipulated, but as to two rooms he could not say whether they had been done or not. T. J. Dickson deposed that tbe bedrooms had not been papered when he entered into possession. J. Bobb, painter, deposed that he had estimated the full repairs at £25. He had done some work to the value of £l4. The defendant’s case was that delivery of the house had been accepted, and the house was in a thorough state of repair. W. F. Crawford, who was present when delivery was taken, deposed that the house was in thoroughly good repair. F. Hall, painter, said the condition of the house was excellent, excepting the papering in one upstairs room. J. W. Smith, Slumber, deposed that he was present when fr Skeet handed over the key, and in reply to Mr Skeet, Mr Joyce said he was perfectly satisfied—witness thought he meant as to the condition of the house. TMorrison, painter, deposed that he had been employed to put the place in repair, and bad not been limited as to what amount he should do. He worked to the value of £44 odd: the upetairs did not require repapering, and appeared to have been done within twelve months, Mr Joyce, recalled by Mr Finn, said it was false that he bad said he was satisfied when he received the key —as to every room nearly he expressed discontent. After counsel had gone into the whole of the points of the case, His Worship said he concluded that the exact terms of the covenant had not been fulfilled as to the two rooms, and he gave judgment, based on Mr Quigley’s estimate, for £ll "s, with costs of Court,