MESNE PROFIT.

Auckland Star, Volume LII, Issue 24, 28 January 1921, Page 5

MESNE PROFIT.

. DIFFERENTIATION FROM RENT. A TENEMENT CASE. Wiiat was described by Mr. Irrler as. an ingenious attempt to circumvent tiie I »ar regulations, came before the Magistrate's v'-o-rt yesterday, when Mary Catherine Sea'y Mr Hutchinson i , [claimed from .lames Henry I Mr. InderiI tiie sum of £35 17 . J The ca«e for the plaint iff was that j defendant was given a month's notice to jquit the premises known as "'Prospect I Hr-:ise." in Manukau Road. which he 1 j bad been cori-dneting a.s a hoarding- | house: he had paying a weekly j rental of .t-_. but lor toe use and oceui pation -since the expiration of trie notice 1 [seeking posses-sion until the date of the Court .proceedings piainrfiiT claimed 10 per day. Mr. Hutchinson said 'this w-a? not a usual tenement case. Hi.s clients were quite prepared to le: plaintiff retain ! possession provided he paid a reasonabie j sum. There was no intention to increase I the rent, bnt the strm demanded was fori ' mesne profits. | Mr. Poynton: Perhaps it is rather an! i irt-'Pnioiis way of getting over the war | regulations. I Mr. Inder moved for a nonsuit on the ■ grounds that the law required 38 days' i notice of an intention to increase the i rent. If the claim for mesne profit could ' succeed the whole object of the war 'regulations would be defeated, and if iby calling the increase in rent- me=ne ] profit, the result was that the tenant could -be forced out through an ex- • ' orbit ant rental. He gave Mr. Hutchini son credit for ":*e:Tig the first in the 1 Dominion, as far a.s he was aware, to rai=e the point. Hi? Worsh'p noted rjhe nonsuit pn-int ' and reserved his judgment.