ILLEGAL BUSINESS,

Auckland Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 148, 22 June 1917, Page 6

ILLEGAL BUSINESS,

MAGISTRATE AWARDS DAMAGES. A HOUSE THAT WORE BADLY. An interesting and important case recently heard in the Magistrate's Court was that of IL N. Hannan v. Ernest Edwards, greengrocer, Mount Albert, the judgment being given this morning by Mr. E. C. Cutten, S-M. The hearing occupied five days. lv giving judgment, the magistrate said plaintiff let a house to defendant in July, llll."), and tbe defendant gave up possession on May 9 last. Plaintiff claimed £14 5/ for damages to the premises, for which it was alleged the defendant was responsible. Defendant counter-claimed for £7 12/6, on account of repairs he alleged he bad made to the premises, for a refund of tram fares paid to plaintiff when plaintiff collected the rent at the premises, and for damages for illegal distress. The plaintiff's claim was made up of a number of items for the damage to various things about the premises, but there was no satisfactory evidence on which the defendant could be held liable for the damage. The damage alleged to have been done by defendant to windows was more likely .o have been caused by mischievous boys after the house had been vacated, and it -was stated at the hearing that plaintiff had prosecuted some boys, while it was unlikely a tenant would break a large number of the windows of the bouse in which be was living. The damage to the hearths might lie considered fair wear and tear in a case in -which the. hearths bad been broken and then repaired with a thin coating of cement. In deciding a tenant's liability for the state of the premises when he left them consideration had to he given to structural defects and bad arrangements which greatly increased the effect of ordinary wear and tear. In this case the evidence showed that the bouse was built thirteen years ago, largely from timber obtained from tbe purchase of old houses, that the timber was badly infected with worm, that the house had sagged, and that there was not proper provision for drainage, and part of tbe drainage had been finding its way under the house- A Health Department report on the premises in April last was distinctly unfavourable. How could any tenant keep silc-li a property in repair, and prevent it deteriorating? On the claim judgment would be for defendant, with costs.

In considering the counter-claim, his worship nonsuited the defendant on a claim for repairs effected by him on the ground that tho work was not done by agreement, and the work was not of such a nature as to make the tenant an "agent of necessity."' On the claim for a refund of tram fares pad by the defendant when collecting the rent, the magistrate said the plaintiff admitted demanding payment of the tram fares, and failed to prove that the payment wa3 a term of the lease. Ordinarily rent wns payable on the land. His Worship added that "to make such a demand is not only acting in a very hard way. but the putting of such a term in a lease should be discouraged, because it is open to very grave abuse. 1 think the defendant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid." After further reviewing the evidence the magistrate decided that the distress warrant served on defendant was illegal in that it was served on the day when the rent became legally due. and the rent was not legally in arrear (when the warrant might be served) until the next day. Heavy damages might be allowed in such eases, even when the defendant had suffered no material damage, ami .£5 damages would be allowed on that head. Judgment was for defendant on the counterclaim for £;> 12/0, and for costs amounting to £10 13/.

Mr MeLiver appeared for plaintiff in the case, and Mr. A. Hall Skelton for the defendant.