SCARCITY OF HOUSES.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 118, 18 May 1920, Page 5

SCARCITY OF HOUSES.

THREE ORDERS FOR POSSESSION" REFUSED.

Cases still continue to come before the Magistrate's Court in which owners of dwellings eeek possession of their tenements. In each the defence is the almost impossibility of finding empty houses to which to go. In one case this morning the defendant was in the happy posses-j eion of having , been able to find a house, aDd consented to an order being made to give up possession within 14 days. In all such cases it means, ot course, that the occupant, of the house, 'besides having to find a new residence, is also mulcted in Court and solicitors' rosts. In two other caees the defendant in one instance said the rent had not been called for, and fee 3iad £8 7/ ready to pay over in Court, but -was not] prepared to give up possession. In the third case the defendant said: ' - I paid all, the rent due, £7 '13/ to the solicitor."! "Are you prepared to give up posseseion V aaked Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M. "Xot just yet,"' was the reply. Misses Mur Annie and Josephine Catherine Lamb (Mj. H. A. Horrocks) eought to recoxer possc£?ion of a. tenement in Woods Street, Ponsonby, occupied by Mr. H. Wigg (Mr. J. J. SaDivan). Evidence was given, for the plaintiff that the lioase was required for herself and her staff in connection with a boardinghouse kept "by tbe two siatere. 'For tbe defence it was shown that defendant had a wife and five chil-j dren, the youngest 19 months old. He had tried, but found it impossible to get another house. Mr. Sullivan claimed the hardship in this case was on the eide of the tenant, as the owners merely wanted possession for the purpose of business. Mr. Poynton said undoubtedly the hardship was with the tenant, and refused to mate any order for possession. Sir. Sullivan asked £1 6/ being allowed. WANTED FOft A HOSPITAL. Mr. F. K. Hunt. S3f., had two cases in the Auxiliary Courtroom, in which Mrs. Ellen Garlick sought possession of tenements occupied by H. Bryant and 0. Allan. Mr. Campbell explained that both houses were wanted for the purpose of enlarging Woodside Hospital, which was { really a matter of public importance. Mr. Hunt: Or private profit? Mr. Bryant said he always paid his rent in advance, but latterjj , it had not been called for. He had received notice, but found it impossible to get another house. He had failed to get rooms, because he had two young children. j Mr. Campbell said they had nothing against either tenant as rent was paid regularly. He was prepared to allow Mr. Bryant another six weeks. Mr. Hunt said it "was absolutely in the hands of the Magistrate to" decide whether or not it was a case of undue hardship. Here was a case where a man and his wife with two young children might be ehot out into the street, with nowhere to go. Mr. Campbell said on the other hand, if there was an epidemic, it was necessary to have plenty of hospital accommodation. ■Mr. Hunt said he would not make an order, but let the cas? stand for the six weeks offered by plaintiff. Mr. Bryant said he had' the rent in his pocket which had not 3>een called for, and was instructed to pay it to plaintiffs solicitor. The O. Allan was identical. Mr. Allan said he had five children .md had done Ms best to get a house but failed. There did not appear to be any •>ninty place?. Mr. Hunt also adjourned this ease for six weeks.