LANDLORD SUED

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 289, 6 September 1928, Page 3

LANDLORD SUED

TENANTS OBTAIN DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS Wrongful entry, trespass, and intimidation were the charges laid against their landlord, Thomas Knudson Garratt, by Henry ami Madeleine ' eronica Humhpreys m the Lowei Hutt Court, before Mr. J. 11. Salmon, S.M., yesterday. Damages to the extent of £lOO were claimed by plaintiffs on account of pain, iation, and inconvenience alleged to have been suffered through illegal trespass by dC The“basis of the allegations was that defendant had trespassed on the property of hi tenants, and finding the premises ?ockcd forced an entry through a window It was stated that on other occasions also he. had been on the propeity without lawful reason. One one occasion he had walked into the kitchen while they were having breakfast, saying.thatc v... in possession, after which he had 1 ceeiled to make an inventory of the goods. Lighting and gas had been cut off befo e he Humhpreys had given up possessmn. Counsel for the defence (Ml. I • J • Putnam) stated that plaintiffs owed iloO to previous landlords and although three -onerous offers had been made by GaiHitt. only £4l 15s. had been paul for ’°The C Magistriite pointed out that while ■i landlord may distrain, he has no i'ight of re-entry except through tn flm S Court. lue plain tiffs have been unsatisfactory tenantS'.am are entitled to damages. There ffP!™”® to be a misapprehension in the Inml, lord’s mind upon his. riJit t . •md his right to terminate the teuan Yj; ilia right to terminate was fixed under he Broner v Law Act. There has been re ieatcdly- pointed out .he danger o a i,lfh.nt| s . II.!• elwr o>-il «h..t he wanted .was possession, of On Xii’nist 6 he gave notice whitli. quite im.pm-ative ns it did not satisfy the conditions of the Property Law Act. . IK then immediately thought ol his rights under the Distress Act, but did not enter for the purpose of distraining, and he went in on an unlawful occasion, lhe l.ntrv on Yu-ust S was for distraining, I think, nnd wns quite lawful if Th" other occasion I do not considei law ful’ but I do not. think the case is one lor heavy damages." The sum of £25, costs, and. witnesses expenses were awarded to plaintiffs.