RIGHT OF ENTRY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 35, 12 February 1923, Page 8

RIGHT OF ENTRY

LANDLORD AND TENANT IN

CONFLICT

ALLEGATIONS OF TRESPASS.

The relations existing between the landlord and tenant of a house at Day's Bay were discussed in a civil action which opened at the Supreme Court today before Mr. Justice Hosking and a jury of twelve. There were two actions, the plaintiff in each being Sarah Rowberry, of Day's Bay, and the defendants James Joseph Bourke and Gertrude Bourke, of Lower Hutt.

Mr. J. F. B. Stevenson appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendants were represented by Mr. A. W. Blair and Mr. lt. G. Watson.

The statement of claim set out that the female defendant let to the plaintiff a house at Day's Bay for three years from 24th March, 1922. to 23rd March, 1925, at a weekly rental of £3 3s, to be paid to a Mr. j. B. Finlay, of Moana road, i/ays Bay. Plaintiff took possession of the house on 24th March, and she still resided there with her daughter and her boarders. It was alleged that the defendants or their servants ,wrongfully broke into and trespassed on the house. The plaintiff, it was stated, was threatened with force, and was terrorised. It was further alleged that as a result of the treatment meted out to her, including a threat to nail the place up with her inside, the plaintiff. lost one of her boarders, and in addition she was roughly handled by a person who called himself the bailiff of the defendant. As a result of her experience, she suffered in health and lost her boarders. Plaintiff claimed £250 for loss of profits and damage to the house, and £501 for general damagas. The defence generally denied the allegations made by the plaintifl'. and further stated that on 6th October, 1922, £31 10s as rent was overdue, and on 11th October, 1922, written notice was given to the plaintiff that her tenancy had been determined, and requesting payment of the money owinj. It was arranged that the plaintiff ihould be given one week, which was later extended by three days, to pay the money, but the only amount advanced was £6 4s. The defence alleged that the plaintiff had trespassed on the premises and was still trespassing thereon.

(Proceeding.)