Charge against tenants fails

Press, 12 October 1979, Page 10

Charge against tenants fails

The Rent Appeal Act did not give any right to a land- t lord to use money, paid as a F bond by tenants, towards;!* rent, Mr S. C. Barker sub-T mitted in the Magistrate’s, a ;Court yesterday. It He said the act made it h i clear that a bond was not a | for rent but to safeguard ; against damage by tenants. C ; Mr Barker’s submissions J ■ were made when he success-; h jfully defended two persons,v on a joint charge of theft of a t ! television set and mattress, r I of a total value of $BO. from | their former landlord, Huber- t jtus Kerkhofs. v | Mr F. G. Paterson, 5.M...r 'dismissed the charge against!a ■Tau Henry Kapa, aged 37, v ;and Heather Jan Teare, aged 1 30. I They .denied the charge, f ; Sergeant C. J. Shannahan’s | prosecuted. r Prosecution evidence was't given that the items were taken when the defendants I moved from one of Mr Kerk- v hof’s flats. Mr Kerkhofs said v he had kept their bond of $5O I for outstanding rent. 1

Asked in cross-examina-tion by Mr Barker whether Kapa had argued with Mr Kerkhofs that he owed Mr Kapa a refund of the bond, and had also made a mistake in the rent, Mr Kerkhofs agreed that he had made a mistake. In a statement produced by Constable A. Newman, Teare allegedly said Mr Kerkhofs claimed they were two weeks behind in their rent, but they knew fhey were not behind. Because Mr Kerkhofs owed them $5O they took the television set. They also took the mattress. “One thing led to another. I knew I was in the wrong,” her statement allegedly said. After hearing evidence from Kapa the Magistrate said it was clear that it was not the defendant’s intention to steal the two items. They were “holding” them because they considered there was an account current between them, as Mr Kerkhofs had elected to retain the bond money.