"FOR HIS OWN USE"

Evening Post, Volume CX, Issue 52, 29 August 1925, Page 13

"FOR HIS OWN USE"

INTERPEETATION OF POSSESSION

OEDER.

A case bearing some unusual features came before Mr. C. E. Orr Walker, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when E. O. Sutton was charged with that, having obtained an order for possession of premises at 19, Alpha street, for the purpose of occupying them himself, he allowed them to be occupied by persona other than members of his own family. Defendant was represented by Mr. A. B. Sievwright, and Mr.. A. M. Free appeared for the informant, Mrs. Lewer.

Mr. Free' said that defendant obtained an order for possession against his client, and then continued to live next door, at 17, Alpha street, letting some of the rooms m No. 19.t0 other people. ThifJ was, he claimed, in contravention of the terms of the order.

Mr. Sievwright stated defendant had to wait about five.weeks before moving into No. 19, in order to have repairs done. Immediately these were completed, defendant went into No. 19, and since that time, ,6th March, had lived there with liis »ori. Mrs. Sutton had declined to accompany her husband to the house until her month's notice to leave No. 17 was due, which would be "on 28th September next. She then intended to shift into No, 19.

Defendant said he went into . 19, Alpha street, on 6th'March, and had with his son used the premises as sleepine quarters ever since. While he was endeavouring to have .the Lewers quit the premises previously, his wife began to take in boarders to assist the^famity finances, and when^No. 19 was ready for use he let rooms to his wife, who placed three boarders there. His wife and three daughters wero living in No. 17 at the present time. The house in dispute was of four rooms, which included a kitchen.

.The Magistrate said that, in his. opinion, it could not be said that defendant brought himself within the meaning of the proviso whereby "if a house Contained more rooms than were necessary for the use of the family and domestic servants, the letting of such rooms to other persons would not be considered a contravention of the' terms of the order." It was absurd to think that a house of the size of No. 19 contained more rooms than were necessary for the defendant and his family to live in, and he considered that there had been a contravention of the order. He would convict defendant and fine him £5.