STATE AND TENANTS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 237, 7 October 1933, Page 12

STATE AND TENANTS.

COMPLAINT BY COUNSEL

CLAIMS FOR POSSESSION. (By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.) ' PAPAKURA, Friday. On tho one hand the Government state that they are trying to help the relief workers, while on the other they are pushing them out of their houses all over the place, 6a id counsel (Mr. Rice), when an application for the possession of a house at Takanini was before Mr. F. H. Levien, S.M., in the Papakura Magistrate's Court to-day. Tho applicant was the State Advances superintendent, for whom Mr. Bell appeared, and defendant was George F. Bartels. A clerk in the Advances Office, Edward Drake, gave evidence that notice was served on Bartels on July 4, that, as mortgagee, the State required possession, half-yearly instalments, principal and interest not having been kept up. Defendant made no application for relief. Ho had paid £7 18/0 since November, which was less than 3/9 a week. The value of the property was £550. Mr. Rice: Defendant is a returned soldier, who has been in possession nine years. He is married, with three young children, and has been on relief work. He is now being forced into the street. Counsel asked that the warrant be suspended for eight weeks to give defendant some opportunity to secure another house.

Witness: He hcs made various promises to pay 10/ a week, but they have not been kept. Mr. Rice: That is all very well. These men are forced into these promises to save their home?.

Mr. Levien: The trouble is that it is a Department with a duty to the State. Bartels said he had paid for the section before borrowing from the Department to build his house, and had also paid off a second mortgage of £135.

Mr. Drake: He is earning 37/o.a week, and other relief workers pay 12/0 rent from their 37/6.

Bartels said he was earning 37/ weekly, but only for three weeks in every four, the other being a standdown week. His average was 27/ or 28/ per week. Mr. Bell submitted that all of this was beside the point.

Mr. Levien: Yes, as the statute stands I have no alternative but to make an order for possession in favour of the Department. Defendant's only .'sdri'ss is to apply to the Minister or she Department for relief. An order was made for possession ok or before November 0, with costs, £2 1/, against Bartels.

An order for possession by the same (Late was also made against Tom Wilkinson on the application of Francis Shannon in respect of another house at Takanini. Judgment was given against defendant for arrears of rent £33 1/G and costs £4.