TENANCY CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXXIII, Issue 48, 26 February 1937, Page 7

TENANCY CASE

MINISTERS' PART

STRONG CRITICISM BY SOLICITOR

During the hearing of a tenancy casa in the Lower Hutt Court yesterday afternoon, in which Ethel Dorothea Hope sued G. D. Lundon and E. Lundon (sued in, respect of , her separate estate) for possession of a house at 1 Boulcott Avenue, Lower Hutt, and £12 12s arrears in rent, mention was made of the part Cabinet' Ministers had taken in the proceedings. '

Mr. F. W. Ongley appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. F. C. Hay for the defendant. . • .■■■'.•

George David Lundon said he took over the house two and a half years ago. He first paid £1 Is a week. In October, 1935, he received notice to leave. He was prepared to give up possession of the house if he could obtain another one and would pay :30s for that purpose. The plaintiff's solicitors had been very helpful. He was a married man with four children. He was an applicant for one of the Government houses.

In reply to Mr. Ongley, he ■ said that in May, 1936, a bailiff was put in and he sought the help of the Hon. W.Nash, M.P. The arrears were only £.8. ' '•'■■■.-

Mr. J. O'Donovan, . a member of the firm of Ongley, O'Donovan, and. Arndt, said that in October, 1935, he paid a visit to the house and in his opinion it was being ■ abused. Notice was given to Mr, Loin don to quit. In May, 1936, Mr. Lundon was £5 5s in. arrears and witness put, a bailiff; in. The next morning the secretary of the lion. W. Nash rang up and said that Mr. Nash, was anxious to do something: to help the man, find him,work, and get him another house, :so witness agreed to let him stay on another month: and accept £1 a week rent for that period. He received a letter from Mr. Nash as follows:—"With reference to my secretary's conversation today with your Mr. O'Donovan, I wish to thank you 'for your offer to assist Mr. Lundon to the extent of allowing, him to remain in the property another month if he pays, say, £1 a week. I am doing what I can to help this man and I have asked him to call and see' you." Fourteen days later' the Kent Restriction Act was passed. He knew Mr. Nash was a busy man, but when the Minister left New Zealand without doing anything about the matter witness wrote to the Prime Minister and received a letter from the Hon. H. T. Armstrong, Minister ofLabour, stating that the Prime Minister had asked him to reply and continuing: "I understand that my.colleague represented Mr. Lundon's case tj} you. He merely indicated Mr. Lunlion's request but gave no undertaking that he would accept any responsibility in regard to the finding of another house or in any other way." "The letter from Mr. Armstrong repudiates the arrangement with Mr. Nash and to my mind it is not a credit to any Minister of the Crown," said Mr. O'Donovan. "It will be a lesson, to me in future not to make arrangements with. any Minister of tha Crown." ■'"■'', Grant Fargie, land agent, gave evidence of: the state of the house, and detailed, arrears in rent. The Magistrate (Mr. H. P. Lawry. SM) inspected the house, and on hit return to the court gave an order for possession within seven days, tn« order vto be suspended weekly-up t» the end of March so long as-Lundon pays 25s a week up to the end of that period. Arrears were fixed at £8 Is.