THE HOUSE FAMINE.

Auckland Star, Volume LI, Issue 292, 7 December 1920, Page 5

THE HOUSE FAMINE.

AND THE QUESTION OF HARDSHIP.

Claims for possession of tenements came Ibefore both Mr. E. C. Cutten, S.M., and Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., to-day.

In the case of F. Eady (Mr. Waddinghara) brought against'"Mrs. H. Duncan (Mr. Ward), the matter was partly gone into last week by Mr. Cutten. who concluded this morning by non-suiting plaintiff on the ground that the notice given to quit was not sufficient, a full month being required.

Mrs. L. O. Smith (Mr. Herman) sought possession of a house occupied by Mrs. L. Whitehouse (Mr. Sellar). The latter raised the non-suit point that the action had been brought too soon, the summons having been issued before the cause of action arose. Mr. Poynton said this was a ease of very great hardship. His sympathies were with the owner, a widow with three children, who, after having bought a house, could not get possession of it. There was also hardship on the tenant's side. An order for possession could not be granted, because the action had been brought too soon. Still he must admit the hardship was greater on the owner in this case. His Worship added as far as the tenant was concerned, the Act made it clear that the question of hardship had onJy to be considered in respect to the owner and the tenant. That did no: include the tenant's friends and relatives, even if the latter were returned soldiers. There seemed to be an idea that if only a Teturned soldier could be got to live in a house the tenant could not toe turned out. That was quite a mistake. Only the hardship to owner or tenant had to be considered by the magistrate.