CASE AGAINST DR. THACKER

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21084, 8 February 1934, Page 4

CASE AGAINST DR. THACKER

JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF WRONGFUL RE-ENTRY OF PROPERTY A decision against the defendant was given yesterday in the case in which Robert Charles Craik, a motorengineer, sued Dr. H. T. J. Thacker in the Civil Court for damages amounting to £75. The plaintiff alleged wrongful eviction and the unlawful detention of property against Dr. Thacker. After hearing the case, Mr H. A. Young, S.M., stating that he was satisfied that the allegations were correct, gave judgment for the plaintiff for the full amount with costs. 1

It was alleged during the hearing i of the case for the plaintiff, and in : the claim itself, that the defendant had placed the garage occupied by C'raik, and owned by the defendant, in the custody of the police. An explanation of his action was given dur- ■ ing yesterday's hearing by Dr. Thac- ■ ker, who said that he had telephoned to the police station and asked a constable to sec that the policeman on beat kept an eye on his property. ; Craik, in his statement of the claim, set out that on November 4 the defendant. Dr. Thacker. without notice to the plaintiff, wrongfully entered on the premises at 153 Worcester street, which were rented by the plaintiff from the defendant, and retook possession; that defendant unlawfully detained certain chattels of the plaintiff, and wrongfully deprived the plaintiff of the possession of the chattels the defendant then letting the premises to an employee of the plaintiff; that the defendant placed the premises and chattels in the custody of the police to prevent the plaintiff from recovering possession, and subsequently refused to reinstate the plaintiff in possession of the premises. The plaintiff thereby was prevented from carrying on his business, and had suffered financial loss and injury to his reputation and credit. ine plaintiff claimed the sum of £oO general damages and £25 special damages for loss of business, and claimed possession of the detained chattels, oi £l2 15s in case possession could not explained by Mr H. Edgar. J who appeared for the plaintiff, that the chattels had been recovered, and the last clause of the claim was i waived. Mr T. Milliken appeared for the defendant. j Keys Given Up. Evidence was given yesterday by j George William Prebble, who, Craik said on Tuesday, had been put in charge of the garage when CraiK took up his position with the fire brigade. Witness gave details of the instructions he received from Craik, and of visits he paid to Craik to report progress at the garage. On November 3, witness said he went to McAulay to get the garage keys. McAulay said that Dr. Thacker had gone along and demanded the keys. Witness asked McAulay why he had given the defendant the keys. McAulay could not say why, and seemed sorry that he had done so. Witness informed Craik of the position. On the following day, Sunday, witness went to the garage and saw a policeman on guard, who told witness that Dr. Thacker had given him orders to guard the place. Witness went to inform Craik, with whom he returned to the garage. Witness heard Craik speak to Dr. Thacker over the telephone and ask for an explanation of the presence of the police. Later McAulay arrived in a taxi-cab and shortly after another car carrying police. The man in charge of the police seemed to be under the impression that the place had been broken The man remarked that he could not make out why the police were there at all; he had a look round. Witness was positive that nothing had been packed up previously on the premises. After discussing the position, witness said, he and Craik decided to take the most expensive tools away. "We intended to carry on and I went back on Monday," witness added. "McAulay, with the other employee, was there, and said that they intended to carry on themselves. They did not know anything about Craik." Witness added that later, within a week of the eviction of Craik. Craik's name had been painted off the garage and the name of the Enterprise Garage painted on. , ~ , To Mr Milliken. Prebble said that on the Saturday night (November 4) he wanted to find out whether all was right in the garage and got in through the window. Witness denied that there had been any suggestion of Crgik giving up the business. Prebble's evidence concluded the case for the plaintiff. Case For Defendant. Mr Milliken submitted that the real reason for the claim for damages was that Craik should secure money with which to pay up his creditors. The amount asked for (£75) would just pay the balance owing, he claimed, i "Counsel for the plaintiff has made some very extraordinary, and, I submit, unfair statements, describing the defendant's actions as high-handed, scandalous, petty tyranny, and an unscrupulous abuse of legal process," said counsel for Dr. Thacker, when opening his case. "He says that he is asking for vindictive damages. In doing so he has quoted a case for such damages, upheld by the court, but we submit that there is no resemblance to the facts of that case and what happtned in the present matter. Plaintiff also says that the defendant wrongfully entered the premises and unlawfuly detained certain chattels, but the defendant says that the plaintiff surrendered the premises by his manager McAulay. Defendant says also that the plaintiff has always been able to remove the chattels, and that no evidence has been put forward that the chattels have been demanded and been rerpoved. It is necessary to prove that to uphold the claim." Mr Edgar protested that there had been demands for the chattels. ; Mr Milliken also submitted that Craik had suffered no loss at all in j the actions of the defendant. He had been renting the premises on a : monthly basis, with the rent in ad- i vance and no arrangement had been ] made that the monthly payment i should be delayed. Craik was at first ] a good payer, but then he "slipped" and was late with his payments. Coun- 1 sel said that the defendant would say ! that Craik was not a good tenant. Con- : tiary to the Drainage Board regula- ' tions, Craik had twice broken into a sewer in the garage, and the damage had given the doctor a great deal of worry, laying him open to action and putting him to expense. When Craik had secured the position with the Fire Brigade, he had told several persons that he intended giving up the garage, counsel said. McAulay was Craik's servant and manager and had full" control of the business, subject to supervision by Prebble, and McAulay would say that Prebble called on him on Saturday, November 4, and told him that he could pack up, because Craik was going to vacate the garage on the ne'xt day. McAulay then went to Dr. Thacker and told him that Craik had walked out, and it was arranged that McAulay should hand over the keys, so that Dr. Thacker could protect his. own properly.

Watcli By The Police,

In the evening Dr. Thacker became worried about the place and got in touch with the police, asking them to keep a watch on the premises for him. This they did, said counsel. There had been a suggestion that some scandalous proceeding had been adopted to get Craik out, but evidence had bsen heard from the police to the effect that the police did not go down to evict anybody. Later Dr. Thacker gave a tentative consent to McAulay taking over the premises. On Monday McAulay found that most of Craik's stuff was gone. McAulay and Waddell

had been carrying on since. McAulay would say that he had had no intention of acting on the authority from Gilby for the detention of the chattels until the claim for repairs to the drain was met. Dr. Thacker, in evidence, said that he owned the premises which were let to Craik. The rent at first -was paid punctually. Then it began to slide and in October, 1933, Gilby, witness's agent, began to be worried about the building. There was an application on the part of an adjoining tenant for the first right of refusal of the garage. Towards the end of October witness was advised that Craik had gone to the Fire Brigade, the first intimation being when McAulay told witness that on the Sunday Craik was to walk out. It was on Saturday, November 4, that McAulay told witness that he had been instructed by Craik to walk out.

"It was quite an alarming thing to me, for I knew nothing about Craik vacating the place," said witness. He thought it best that, being the owner, he should have the possession of the keys, which McAulay left with witness.

"I look on the police as the sole protection a citizen has for his property and I. thought that the best thing to do was to ring the police and ask them to protect my property," said witness. He spoke to a constable and asked him to ask the man on duty to keep an eye on the garage. Letter Not Authorised.

To Mr Edgar, Dr. Thacker said that 1 Craik had never gone beyond a month ■ in making his payments for rent. Wit- ' ness said that he had had nothing to do with the "gang" of police which • went round to the garage. He had spoken only to the policemen on duty at the station. Witness had not authorised Gilby to write a letter to McAulay suggesting the detention of Craik's goods. Mr Young: When did you ring the police? Dr. Thacker: After I found that I could not get Mr Gilby, I became worried and telephoned the police at midnight. I sent McAulay in a taxicab to the police station to explain why I had telephoned for protection for the garage. Mr Young: Could you not have telephoned the station yourself? I cannot understand why you did not do so, instead of ringing up a taxi-cab to send McAulay. Witness: I took McAulay to be the manager and the responsible agent. Mr Young repeated that he could not understand the doctor sending McAulay to the station. He did not understand why Dr. Thacker was worried about the position. Witness said that he would have been quite pleased to have let Craik take out his tools on Sunday morning, had Craik gone round to witness for the keys. • , , Charles Horace Gilby, accountant for the defendant, also gave evidence. He denied the statement made by Craik that he had said that Dr. Thacker was a strange man to work for. Archibald McAulay, a garage employee, said that he went to work with Craik in October, 1932. Craik told witness last October that he was going to take a job in the Fire Brigade and leave witness in charge of the garage. Craik used to tell a lot of stories that the men at the garage could not believe. Witness said that Prebble had told him that Craik wanted witness to pack up and vacate the garage. Witness said that when he saw Dr. Thacker he told the doctor that he would like to take the garage over on his own account, the doctor agreeing. On Sunday morning a taxi-cab called at witness's home and he went to the police station. There he saw a detective, who asked him what he knew about the garage. Witness told the detective about Craik intending to leave the garage. Witness then went round to the garage, where he saw several policemen, who left shortly afterwards. Witness said that Craik had broken the drain referred to earlier, on two occasions, to let surplus water get away. Witness told Mr Young that Dr Thacker told him ho wanted the keys of the garage because Craik's rent was behind, and because Craik was walking out. Gerald Algernon Waddell. a motor engineer, employed by Craik some months before Craik accepted the position with the Fire Brigade, was also called for the defence. Frederick Fry. an inspector employed by the Christchurch Drainage Board, gave evidence of the damage done to the drain in the garage. He said that Craik had told him. in October, that he was getting out of the place. Fry's evidence concluded the case for the defence, but Charles Horace Gilby was recalled to make clear a point about which there had been some doubt in his evidence-in-chief—about the date of his interview with McAulay. Wrongful Re-entry. "I am satisfied that there was wrongful re-entry and retaking possession of the premises by the defendant," said Mr Young, when giving judgment for the plaintiff, for the full amount claimed (£75), with costs. Mr Young added that the evidence showed that during the last three months in which Craik was a tenant of the garage, the profits had been about £24 a month. After possession of the premises was retaken by the defendant, that profit was lost, and the business was altogether ruined. It seemed that the plaintiff was entitled to the special 'damages claimed, being the amount of profit likely to be earned during the month in which he was entitled to remain on the premises. The claim for general damages depended on whether the circumstances of the re-entry were aggravated. He was satisfied that there had been aggravation, said Mr Young, and the plaintiff was entitled to the damages. There had also been injury to the plaintiff's credit and reputation and the claim for £SO general damages did not seem at aTT"unreasonable.