OWNER OF HOUSE FINED £l0

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25933, 13 October 1949, Page 3

OWNER OF HOUSE FINED £l0

PROPERTY LET WITHOUT CONSENT OF COURT

“The offence is one for which a penalty of up to £lOO is provided. If this had been a serious case of evasion I would not have hesitated in inflicting a heavy penalty. The defendant will be convicted and fined £10.” said Mr Raymond Ferner. S.M., when he had heard the evidence in a case, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, in which James Lester Jory, a clerk, of 100 Chester street, pleaded not guilty to a breach of the Tenancy Act.

Mr L. H. Armstrong appeared for the Department of Labour and Employment. and Mr M. W. Simes appeared for Jory.

'Die charge against Jory was that, being the landlord of a dwellinghouse at 135 Springfield road, and having been given a Court order on January 20 for possession of the house for his own use, he let the house to a tenant without the consent of the Court.

George Thomas Murray said he was told by an agent that the house at 135 Springfield road was to let. That was in August. He was given a key, but it was not the right one, and he took it back to the agent. He was given authority to enter the house by a back window, and to inspect it. When he moved his furniture in on August 27

the front door had been opened by someone taking off the latch from the inside. He was given a rent book, and paid two weeks’ rent at 27s 6d a week. He saw Jory at the house on the following Monday, and Jory told witness he did not know he had taken possession of the house until that day. Witness showed Jory the rent book, and Jory said it would be all right for him to stay in the house. They discussed the question of repairs. On a later occasion Jorv told witness he, Murray, would receive a letter from a solicitor, but he was to take no notice of it, for it was a matter of form, as he presumed somebody was “going him” for a breach of the Tenancy Act. At no time before he received the solicitor’s letter was he told he had no right to be in the house. He had received no summons to give ud occuoation. and was still in possession. He had a wife and four children. John Thomas Berry, a salesman, said he did not have written authority to let the house at 135 Springfield road, but Mrs Jorv told him to let it. He drew un an agreement for Murray to sign, and later took it to Mrs Jory at 100 Chester street. The defendant and two other ner::ons were thore during th® discussion. It was understood that Murray was to be the tenant. Mrs Jorv bad given him a key. but it wes not (ho Hpl't one. and she told him that if Murray wanted to get into the house to measure no. a back window was unlatched. When Murray said he wanted to move in on the Saturdav witness went into tb® house bv the back window, and nulled thp front door onen. the lat®h holder pulling away. He accepted two weeks' rent from Murray, and handed it to Mrs Jory. After Murrav had moved into the house. Mrs Jorv teleohoned witness, and said thev had just found out the house could not be let with’ out the consent of the Court. When Mrs Jorv told him to let the house, he was satisfied she was actins with the authority of her husband To Mr Simes, he said f hat the £l5 mentioned on an agreement was an amount he was ?oin® to give Jorv fo-~ letting the to Murray: but it was not accented. He had changed Jorv no commission, hut was makin® his commission on the of n property- -it Halswell The Defence The defendant said he had vacated the Springfield road property because its state of disrepair was affecting his wife's health. She had not been in good health since she was injured in Ballantyne's fire. He did not leave the propertv so that he could let it to Murray. He did not know Murray. As soon as he knew Murray was in the house he saw his solicitor. He went to see Murray, and told him he was not supposed to be in the house, as witness would have to get the consent of the Court before he could let it. He also told Murrav that, if he did get the consent of the Court, it would be all risht for Murray to stay in the house. He had made an anplication to the Court, and it would be heard in the afternoon. H® never gave Berrv authority to let the property Berrv offered him £l5. but witness would not accept it. When Berry asked him about letting the hou=:e h® said he. witness, would have to get the permission of the Court. He did discuss repairs with Murray, and th«question of Murrav staving in the house, but that wa« subiect to the Court granting permission Berry said that, as witness had been six months in the house, it would be all right. Lois M. Jorv wife nf the d® f endant gave supporting e*nd®nce. She said she did not ®ive Berrv authority tn let thp nronerty. Gordon Strong, a clerk, said he was present when Berrv sooke to Jorv about letting the house. He heard Jorv sav he would hav® to get thp permission of the Court first. The Magistrate said thp Court would always look sharnlv intn the circumstances of such ras°s. Thorp was considerable dispute about what was said and done in the present case. Murrav was in effect an independent witne c s and the Court thought him truthful There was enough evidence to establish a letting by Jorv in contravention of the act. but there were extenuating circumstances in the case. M’-s health was not good, and they had vacated thn nremi'-pc some time before it was let. Berry, too. might have hastened th® letting alon CT . as he had an interest in it. so that u® could get commission on another sale.