Tenancy Dispute – Chichester Observer – Wednesday, 31 March 1920

A TENANCY DISPUTE. At the Chichester County Bench on Saturday, before Mr. W. H. B. Fletcher (in the chair) and other Magistrates, Mr. Christopher C. W. Chrippes made an adjourned application for a theatre license for the Pavilion, Selsey. Mr. C. E. B. Longcroft represented the applicant, and Mr. E. B. Wannop opposed on behalf of Mr. Harry Joseph, who claimed to be the tenant, Mr. Longcroft said the application was adjourned in order to allow Mr. Chrippes to produce some evidence as to the assignment of the premises to him. He would call Mr. Chrippes who would produce the assignment of the leasehold interest to himself, and also the freeholder’s assent, and he would also call Mr. Phipps, the agent at Selsey, who had always let the hall, and who, in fact, let the hall to Mr. Joseph up to February 21st last, when Mr. Chrippes took possession of the hall. Mr. Joseph, he understood, had never had possession of the hall. Mr. Phipps had always retained the key, and the letting had been just the same as an ordinary person taking the hall for one, two, or three nights, as the case might be. Mr. Chrippes, the Anchorage, Selsey, gave evidence in support of these statements. He produced the assignment of the leasehold interest to himself and his partner, Mr. Clear, and stated that they had entered into a contract to purchase the freehold of the hall. Cross-examined by Mr. Wannop. He did not know on February 21st Mr. Joseph claimed to be the tenant of the hall. He understood that Mr. Joseph was then hiring the hall by the night. He did not know writ had been issued against him for an injunction to restrain him from using the hall. Mr. Frederick- William Phipps, estate agent at Selsey, said he was agent for the former lease holder. On February 27th, ,1919, the hall was let nightly to Mr. Joseph, at £2 ss. per night. Subsequently, Mr. Joseph approached him, and witness agreed that if he took the hall for three nights certain a week, he could hire the hall for per night. Later, Mr. Joseph approached him regarding the purchase of the rest of Mr. Bartholomew's (the lease holder) lease, and the purchase of the premises. He offered to rent the hall for per annum, and afterwards offered £250. Mr. Joseph was unable to carry out the conditions of purchase, and witness advised him to “hang on" as he might be able to do so later. Witness had entire charge of the hall, and locked up every night. He subsequently received instructions from Mrs. Bartholomew to surrender the hall to Mr. Chrippes and his partner, Mr. Clear, to whom the lease had been assigned. Cross-examined. Witness denied that Mr. Joseph had any tenancy of the hall. No notice had been given terminating a weekly tenancy, because there was no such tenancy. Mr. Henry Ernest Joseph said he took possession of the hall in the early part of October, and was the holder of a license which did not expire until November next. He offered £2OO per annum and latter per annum for the lease. He denied having been shown a letter or cable from Mrs. Bartholomew, accepting his offer of per annum if the fixtures were bought. He claimed he was still the tenant. By his instructions, a writ had been issued. Mr. Wannop said the Magistrates had already granted a license for these premises to Mr. Joseph, and this did not expire until November. If a license were granted to Mr. Chrippes, and he committed an offence under it, Mr. Joseph would be responsible. The Bench were being asked to decide whether Mr. Joseph was the tenant or Messrs. Chrippes and Clear. They were asked to decide matter which the High Court would decide under the writ that had been issued. He submitted that they could not give any sort of decision that could affect that. Mr. Longcroft replying on the legal point, said the question of title did deprive the Bench of authority when it arose in some cases, but this particular case, he submitted, was one in which the Bench had discretion in the matter, and it was question of fact whether Messrs. Chrippes and Clear were the responsible tenants and managers. The Chairman, after the Bench had deliberated in private, said they had decided to grant the license.