A SUMMARY EJECTMENT.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 12028, 1 November 1904, Page 7

A SUMMARY EJECTMENT.

CASE IN COURT. An action in which G. W. Russell, proprietor of tlie "Spectator," claimed £25 d-umages from .Alexander Wildey, for ejectment, was heard before Mr VV. R. Hi-wlden, S.M., at tlie Magistrate's Court yesterday. Mr Caissidy nppoared for the plaintiff, and Mr Johnston for tlio defendant. Tho Magistrate, after reading tho statement of claim, said tluvt it appeared to liim the title to tlio promises was in question. Mr Oassidy replied that the question of title, was not in issue, for tho plaintiff waa merely suing in tart for being tium<*l out. Mr Johnston replied that aa far as the defence waa concerned the title of the preirises was in question. H : s Worship agreed to let the hearing of th. case proceed in tho meantime. Mr Cassidy, in opening, said that Wildey had let Russell a room, part of a set of five, and when Ru«sell liad been in pcewr*eion for some time Wildey asked him io leavo. Tlie plaintiff rifused, and the defendant thereupon proceeded to bundle* Mr Russell's tilings out of tlie room. Tho thing was done in a very high-handed way, aiid gave great offenoo. George Warren Russell, the plaintiff, gave evidence tliat on December 4th, 1902, the defendant proposed to him that he should rent rooms from Wildly, and give him ihe machinery work of his paper, the "Spectator." An arrangement was oorae to, and it who agreed that he should pay Wildey 12. per week for the rooms, togetlter with the same prioo paid previously for machining the "Spectator." At that time the defendant was occupying the room fronting the street, and it was arranged that witness was to take the office on tho other side of the passage, tog: ther with whatever rooms were necessary for the purposes of his business. Ho took the downstairs office and a room at tho top of the stairs, together with three printing rooms in another part of tlie building. He held possession of the rooms from December, 1902, up till October 21«t, 19CM. The room .it the top of tho stairs he used ac his private room, and he had it furnished with what was necessary. When the defendant rendered liis first monthly account he had charged 12s 6d per week 'nstead of 12s, and had also added 12s for the additional room at tlio top of the stairs. Mr Wildey afterwards withdrew that cla-im, and never inserted these items again. Some time afterwards Wildey sold his business to Jaawrence Brothers, in consequence of which Wildey had to give up the office he had downstairs. A few weeks afterwards Wildey started anotlier printing business, and ho' then applied to him To give up th© top room. Hint he refused puint blank to do. Subsequently Wildey came to h!m and asked wheUw. ho would allow a lady who was a teacher of dressmaking, to use the roam on one or two days in the week. At that time the room was heing used for the -publishing of the "Spectator," and lie Agreed to allow the lady to nee the room for one or t%vo days a week when he did not require it. On i-Jeptember 19th of the present year, the defendant sent him a message stating that lie wanted to uso tho room, but he replied that ho could not think of giving it up, as he required it for his own purposes. Tho defendant saw him porsonnlly, but he repeated Jus former reply. Witness then went away, and on returning found that the whole of his fu-rnitiire had been removed from the disputed room. On going outside 'he found that his office table, linoleum, pigeon holes, nnd a quantity oi paper liad been thrown on top of a hcarp of potatoes in an open yard at the back of tho premises. The gas fittings he ihad installed had been token away, and thrown down in confusion hv one of the paseaiges leading to one of tho rooms. He immediately went and made arrangements to have his printing done elsowliere, and wrote the defendant a letter. The defendant afterwards saw him, and proceeded to ntter certain threats of what he would do if witness dared to bring an action against him. In reply to Mr Johnston, the witness, stated that after ho had taken possession of tho premises, tlie defendant stated that the fiMi room was not included in thei agreement. He had not over-run tho place with his stuff, and had not used more than the five rooms. The Magistrate, interrupting, said tliat it was only a waste of time going on, for he darned not giv*, judgment in the case. Mr Casrfdy* said tliat ho was prepared to show that a leasehold interest did not come within the section of the Property Irftw Consolidation Act relating to title. After cnm« discussion, his Woirship directed the «ase to stand over for a fortnight.