POSSESSION OF HOUSE

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26396, 14 April 1951, Page 2

POSSESSION OF HOUSE

ACTION ADJOURNED A motion, on behalf of William Francis Kirwan, a bushman, and his wife, Margaret Kirwan, for an interim injunction to stop Alexander Reginald Hunter, a firemen, and his wife, Mary Ann Hunter, from continuing to trespass on a property at 68 Kingsley street, was partly heard before Mr Justice Northcroft in the SuSreme Court yesterday. The- case was ten adjourned to Thursday for hearing. Mr R. A. Young, who appeared for the applicants, said that Kirwan obtained employment on the West Coast as a bushman and came tome at various times. Mrs Kirwan sometimes went to stay with her husband at his place of employment. Kirwan came home at Christmas and learned that the house at 68 Kingsley street, in which they lived, was for sale by the Pubic Trustee. He asked if he could buy it, the price being £4OO, and he paid a deposit. The land agents, after the property had been put up for auction, told Kirwan the reserve had not been reached. The agents said they would try to arrange finance for Kirwan, but later told him they could not do so. Mrs Kirwan went to stay with her husband on the West Coast in February, and. when she returned home, she found that Mr and Mrs Hunter had moved in and her furniture had been put on the veranda. The agents had received an offer ef £4OO from the defendants on February 23, and it was accepted on February >8 so the defendants had moved in before their offer was accepted by the Public Trustee, said Mr Young. Mr and Mrs Kirwan were ignorant of the position and thought they had no rights. It was not until Mr Kirwan got a letter from the Public Trustee about rent that he consulted a solicitor.

“I say that the Hunters have been grossly misled by the agents, who knew that the Kirwans were the tenants yet permitted the Hunters to go into the house, though a condition in the contract was that it was subject to existing tenancies. It ta a matter of urgency that toe Klrwans ’hould reoccupy their home.” said Mr Young. Mr B. G. Dingwall, on behalf of the defendants. opposed the application. He said the matters traversed by Mr Young were relevant to the trial and not to the present proceedings. His main submis.to® ?*■?. wouW to that the pl ?£ nti S s had abandoned possession. His Honour said that both sides of the case should be before the Court, and he adjourned the matter to Thursday.