POSSESSION OF A DWELLING

Hawera Star, Volume L, 21 August 1930, Page 6

POSSESSION OF A DWELLING

FARMER AWARDED DAMAGES

ACTION AGAINST EMPLOYEE

Claiming £l2 as damages as the result, of the failure of Ins former employee to leave a dwelling when given notice, Alexander Looney, farmer, of Meremere, took action against William Busby, labourer, in the Hawera. Court yesterday. Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., heard the ease. Mr. D. G. Smart appeared for plaintiff and Mr. P. O’Dea for defendant. In his evidence to the court plaintiff said that lie engaged defendant as a farm labourer on July 3, 1930, and under the agreement gave him the use of a dwelling on the. property. On July 19 he gave defendant a week’s notice, but defendant refused to leave the house. As the result he gave him written notice on August. 6. The damages claim was in respect of the period from August 6 to August 20. Mr. O’Dea : 1 put it to you. that you are taking this action to avoid paying wages owing to this man. Isn’t that the position ? Plaintiff: No, that’s not the reason. I want possession of the house. Answering the magistrate, plaintiff said lie estimated he owed defendant £4. He gave him notice on the 19th of July to leave on the 26th and had paid him up to the. 17th.

“DOGS LIVING ON AIILK.’’ Mr. O'Dea said that defendant started on a Wednesday and was given notice on a Saturday. His weekly employment commenced on a AVotlnesday, and it was from that day that the week’s notice, when tendered, should have been given. Notice could not be given in the middle of a week. His agreement was that he should receive £3 a week from plaintiff until the cows came in, when it would be increased to £3 10s, said defendant in evidence. Plaintiff in giving him notice had at first refused to give any reason, but later said he knew defendant’s dogs would be living on plaintiff’s milk. Defendant was paid fortnightly j and considered lie should have been given two weeks’ notice. He was served with notice on a Saturday and considered be should at least have bad pay for a week and three days. When a, man was in occupation of a dwelling as part of his employment, then when his employment terminated his occupation terminated, also, said the magistrate. If he. did not, leave when given notice lie became liable for damages. The magistrate said lie was prepared to assess the damage recoverable by plaintiff. Against that it bad been admitted that £4 was owing to defendant. Judgment was therefore given in plaintiff’s favour for £6. Costs I amounting to £2 16s were allowed! plaintiff.