PRISON STAFF HOUSE

Evening Post, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 32, 8 February 1944, Page 6

PRISON STAFF HOUSE

STATE SEEKS POSSESSION An "" application by the Prisons De:partmenft,f or the issue of a warrant for possession of a house at Waikeria i^Borstal Institute occupied by Philip 'Augustus Ray, a former warder, was jheard by Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., in : the Te Awamutu. Court, states a Te ! Awamutu correspondent. Mr. H. T. jGillies, Crown Solicitor (Hamilton), I appeared for the Department, and Mr. !L. Tompkins (Hamilton) for the defendant. i Mr. Gillies, quoted' Section 7 of the [Prisons Act, 1908, which provides that i any officer- who resigns (as did the de.jfendant) shall quit the house occupied by virtue ofj his office, and if he fails tp v dp :Sp aAvarrant may be issued and ; possession taken even by force. The ■defendant had been employed at Wai- ; keria for a number of years, and re- ; signed on December 17, the approval jof the man-power officer and the Public Service. Commissioner having been given. Ray refused to vacate the house. .•"•■.-■"■ ;' If the provisions of the Fair Rents Act regarding tenancy of the house until other accommodatoin were found applied it would create an impossible position, said Mr. Gillies. The def endj ant occupied a staff house at Waikeria, for which he was charged £3Q a year rent: -The normal rent would-be £65' upwards. ; ■ Mr. Tompkins, contended that the I Fair Rents Act impliedly repealed Secjtion 7 of the Prisons Act, and if the section was not so repealed it could be read in conjunction, with the Fair Rents Act; further, it was.not a house to which Section .7 could apply by reason of the fact • that the defendant was not a permanent officer, and thus did not occupy^the house by virtue of his office. Counsel also alleged a technical fault in 'the citation of the defendant. j The defendant said that he had been i on the temporary staff for 20 years. He had tried \o get a house at Te Awamutu, but was unable to do so. He was anxious to get out of the house at Waikeria. !. The Magistrate said he felt he must make an order provided the proceedings were in order, which he doubted. (He did not think the Fair Rents Act j applied by reason of the fact that the I dwelling was part, of the prison build- [ ing. He would look into the matter of ! procedure, and after all the legal processes had been carried out, and the fact proved, the Department would be entitled to secure possession. He would reserve his decision, but the defendant must be prepared to get out imj mediately. Under the statute there was no provision to hold up the warirant.