ALLEGED NUISANCE IN HOUSE : TENANT ORDERED OUT

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22872, 16 February 1949, Page 6

ALLEGED NUISANCE IN HOUSE : TENANT ORDERED OUT

A tenant, who, it was alleged, created a nuisance in the house in which he, his wife and three children were living, was sternly admonished by Mr. B. L. Walton, S.M., in The Magistrate’s Court in Gisborne yesterday when he was giving judgment for the plaintiff in a house possession case.

“The sooner you get a job elsewhere the better. Your manner in court today shows that you are the cause of the trouble,” said the magistrate. The plaintiff was William Joseph Lee (Mr. K. A. Woodward), who sought possession of that part of his house in Stanley road occupied by the defendant, Desmond Oswald Terence Linton, and his family. Linton conducted his own defence. Two Families Share House He had purchased a small house In Stanley road in October, 1948. said Lee in evidence. At the time Linton was a “squatter” in the house, but following a court action it had been agreed that the two families would share the premises. Various incidents, allegedly caused by the Lintons, and of great annoyance to Lee and Mrs. Lee, were described by the plaintiff. “During one of these arguments Linton threatened tc chop off my legs level with my body,” said Lee. Corroboration of her husband’s evidence was given by Mrs. Eileen Lee. Linton and his wife had been un-co-operative from the start, she said. With eight people in a small house some cooperation was necessary. They had endeavoured to obtain other accommodation for the Lintons. Both witness and her husband were in poor health and the strained atmosphere in ths house since October last was not helping them. Linton, in evidence, denied all the allegations made by Lee and Mrs. Lee. He said he had tried to obtain a hut at the transit camp, but had been told by the Rehabilitation Department that as he had only been in Gisborne a short time he had a low priority. Mrs. Linton corroborated her husband’s evidence. The plaintiff had proved his claim, said Mr. Walton, in giving judgment. He would give an order for possession to the plaintiff, but would suspend the execution of that order until March 8. “If you are going to take work elsewhere I would be inclined to let your wife stay in the present premises longer than I would otherwise,” Mr. Walton told Linton.