Sessional_Paper_1901 — Page 244

( 66 )

Q. How was it advertised and made known to the people that the stalls in the Market were to be let? Is it advertised in the papers ?

A.-There is a notice posted up in each Market. I sometimes think it is perhaps not posted up long enough, that there is not sufficient notice given.

Q.-Well, was any means taken to let people outside the Market who might be desirous of getting stalls know that the stalls were to be let?

A.-No.

Q.--Had you general instructions to get as much rent as you possibly could for the Markets, or was there any limit, or did you act on any principle?

W

A. That was the usual principle, but if there was any one had any claim to a stall or shop it was considered.

Q.--That is any member of a deceased stall-holder's family or anything like that?

A. Yes, that was the principle.

Q-To get as much rent out of it as you possibly could ?

A. Yes. But to prevent speculative tenders when I thought a shop was in a very good position and there was likely to be keen competition for it, I used to require the man whose tender was accepted to deposit a sum of money, say three months' rent, as security that he would rent the stall for a year. This deposit acted in two ways. It prevented speculative rents being offered, and it also prevented the Government being ultimately left in the lurch. When a stall became vacant the next man would pay an absurd price for it so as to keep the business to himself for two or three months, then when he had got all his neighbour's business he gave up the stall and the final rent was, of course, very low.

Q.-How did you stop that?

A.-We stopped it by requiring them to keep the stall for a year by depositing a quarter's rent.

Q. Do you know of your own knowledge, Mr. Brewin, whether there was, or was not, much sub-letting? That is the man who got the stall from you went and sub-let it at an enhanced rental to somebody else?

A.-Every now and then cases used to come up of that having been done.

Q. Do you remember any bad case of that sort?

A. Yes, I remember a very bad case in Saiyingpun Market, I think. I can't remember the figures. Perhaps the man got it for $10 and sub-let it for $25.

Q.--Was there any means of punishing such men ?

A. You could only punish them by taking away the shop from them. Q-Were there regular leases granted, for one, two or three years or more?

A.--No, only monthly leases, but when Mr. Mitchell-Innes revised the Market rents in 1889, he gave the stall-holders a written undertaking that they would not be disturbed for three years if they did not contravene the terms of the lease, and when I had occasion to revise the leases I gave the men the same written promise.

Q.--Then, in fact, they had three years' leases?

A.--A good many of them have three years' leases now.

Q.--There is no formal lense, but there is a written undertaking that so long as they comply with the conditions they won't be interfered with for three years and that the rent won't be increased. Is that what you mean?

A. Yes, that is it. A monthly lease with a written undertaking for a longer period.