MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 18 August 1937, Page 8

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. The acute housing shortage in Greymouth and district was forcibly indicated by the claims for possession that were heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth, yesterday, before Mr Raymond Ferner, S.M. ” A claim for £2 3s for rent due, and possession of a tenement was made by Edward Howat (Mr A. M. Jamieson) against Lilly Bell (Mr W. D. Taylor). The case was adjourned some time ago in order to give defendant an opportunity to find another house. Mr Taylor said that Mrs Bell had made every effort to obtain accommodation, but had not been successful. Defendant gave evidence to this effect, stating that she had tried to get rooms, had watched the papers, and had been to the Charitable Aid Board. The Magistrate said that he had previously intimated that he thought the present conditions were not desirable and that he intended to make an order. There was no doubt tnat defendant was in an exceedingly difficult position, but the present situation could not be allowed to continue indefinitely. The fact that there had been as many as twelve persons in a small tenement at the same time, was in itself a good reason why the state of affairs should be dissolved. An order for possession would be made, to take effect in four weeks’ time. The claim for rent would be adjourned sine die. Lucy Lynch (Mr A. H. Paterson) claimed possession of a tenement from Samuel Simonds (Mr. W. D. Taylor). Plaintiff in evidence, said that she had purchased the house from her father, Mr T. B. Tindale and was to pay it off at the rate of £1 a week. The price was £4OO. She had been collecting the rent payable ■bv the present tenent. The house she was living in now, had no stove and was in a worm eaten condition. She intended to use only three rooms of her house, letting the other rooms. Mr Taylor said that his client had lived in the house for ten years and he submitted that the transfer was merely put through in order to enable Mrs Lynch to come within the provisions of the Act. Mrs Lynch might want it for her own use, but it certainly appeared as if the house was transferred to get round the Act. He asked the Magistrate to take into consideration the question’ of hardship. There was no rent owing. The Magistrate said that it appeared from plaintiff’s evidence that there was a genuine desire on her part to obtain possession of the house of which she was the owner. Mr Tayld.r said that defendant during the past ten years had paid about £650 in rent Up to February of this year, the rent had been collected by Tindale, yet the agreement to purchase was entered into in September last. Defendant gave evidence that he had been trying for the past twelve months to get another house, and had several people “on the go” for him, including a butcher and a postman. He appreciated the fact that these people wanted the house and he would make every effort to obtain another house.

The Magistrate said that the right thing to do would be to adjourn the case. There would be no great hardsnip to either party in doing this. The circumstances were no doubt suspicious, but he thought it was a genuine attempt by plaintiff in obtaining the house. He would adjourn the proceedings for three months. His opinion was that plaintiff should have the house. He was not trying to’ be entirely mandatory about the matter, but that was the position and defendant should make every opportunity to get another house in the meantime.