NEW HOUSING LEGISLATION

Evening Star, Issue 18808, 5 December 1924, Page 6

NEW HOUSING LEGISLATION

FIRST PROSECUTION. FINE INFLICTED. Tlic first prosecution to be heard here under housing legislation passed in the last session of Parliament came before Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M., in the City Police Court this morning. Andrew Edgar was charged with, on October 10, at Green Island, letting a clwelling-honso within six months after obtaining possession from Janies Sickels on the ground that ho reasonably required it for his own occupation. u Inspector Lightloot prosecuted, and Mr J. M. Gillies appeared for the defendant.

Mr Gillies said the prosecution was brought under the amended Act of .this year. Some of the facts were admitted. The fact, however, that defendant obtained possession on the ground that lie required it for his own occupation was denied.

Inspector Lightfoot said that notice to quit was served on Mr Sickels on May 10, 1924, by Messrs Lang and Paterson. That notice was Voided, however, by the fact that Mr Edgar accepted rent during the term of the notice and after its expiry. Evidence would show that on various dates between October 10 and 15 defendant repeatedly asked plaintiff to get out, as he wanted to move into the house himself. Plaintiff was not in very good circumstances, but he had to raise a deposit to buy another house in the locality. Possession of the house was given to defendant, who did not move in himself, but put someone else in. James Sickels gave evidence. He said that some people called Warlick moved into the house on the same day as when he left. Defendant, told him at some time during July or September that he wanted Ihe house for his own occupation. Every lime he said ho could not get a house Edgar called him. a—— liar. The wife of the previous'witness also gave evidence. She told of Edgar striking her, and admitted striking him. Describing one id these sallies, she said; “ He thought he would get a hit, and ho got one,” (Laughter.) She also was cross-examined by Mr Gillies.

Mr Gillies said tho inspector had failed to prove that an offence had been committed. There was nothing definite iu regard to the date, and it was a fact that previous to July 21 there could have been no suggestion that there was an offence, ns it was only on that date that the amendment came into operation. Ho submitted that in the circumstances the inspector had not made Out a good case, and it should be dismissed.

Defendant, in evidence, said Hint the place was getting info a rough state, and he served notice to quit on Sickels. Witness was iu good health at that time, hut ho afterwards became crippled with rheumatics, and could not work the place. He then decided not to go into it. Ho allowed the tenants time to got a place. The Magistrate said there was no doubt that defendant had said bo reasonably wanted the house for his own use. In the present ease it was probably just as well that the landlord and the former tenants had left the neighborhood of each Other. Defendant would be convicted and fined 20s, with witnesses’ expenses (22s 4d), and court costa (11s).