MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Kaikoura Star, Volume LIV, Issue 36, 10 May 1934, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

(Before Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M.) WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 1934. J. Yaxley v. C. Tolehard. claim £3. Judgment Teas -given lor the amount claimed, with costs. Two judgment summons cases were considered, an order for payment of £1 per month being made in one and no •rder in the ether. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION COMMLSIONER OF CROWN LANDS v. T. HODGMAN. The Commissioner of Lands sought an order for possesion of certain land reserved for a public work, of 16 perches, on the main south road, fronting section 34, Block VI., Hundalee .Survey district, now in the occupation of Thomas Hodgman and that defendant’s license to occupy such land be cancelled. Beill a PP c ared for plaintiff, and Mr J. W. Anderson for defendant. Mr heid stated that the action was taken under instructions from the Minister for Public Works. The defendant had put up a shack and had resided there several years. He had been granted a license to occupy under certain conditions made by the Hundalee Scenic Board, and the rent had become in arrear and he was given notice to quit. Defendant had failed to comply with that order, and the Department now claimed for possession. W J.. Elvy, draughtsman of the Lands and Survey Office, Blenheim, and official secretary to the Hundalee Scenic Board, gave evidence and submitted a sketch plan of the area in ques tion, and read a copy of the Order-in-Council giving the Scenic Board control, and of exercising jurisdiction over camping sites and the right to collect rentals. The conditions had been laid down by the Board on April 26, 1929, the rental being fixed at 2/ per week, to be paid monthly in advance. The Board had had a great deal of trouble with the defendant, and notice had been given him to vacate the premises. The notice to quit had not been complied with. Mr Anderson asked in what way defendant had been a sour re of annoyance to the Board. Mr Elvy said defendant had denied the right of the Board to charge rent, and he had not paid the rent. The position had been discussed at each meeting of the Board. Mr Anderson: That docs not constitute a source of annoyance. His Worship said defendant may have been a worry to members of the Board, but it could not be said he had been an annoyance. Mr Anderson said his client had been under the impression that the land belonged to William Bullen. Mr Elvy: Defendant had not been personally an annoyance to the Board. His Worship: There is no evidence that the license had been revoked. Mr Reid: The conditions have not been complied with. Mr Anderson: Has a resolution been passed by tho Board cancelling the license? Mr Elvy said the Board had been in communication with the Minister asking that the premises be vacated.

Mr Anderson said his client had been in occupation for eleven years, and when working for Mr Bullen he had been granted the right to occupy the site rent free. The rent in arrears amounted to £lO 9/. Mr Elvy said the Board considered that as defendant had not paid the rent it desired him to be removed. The matter regarding Mr Bullen had been investigated, but the area in question was a chain back from Bullen’s land. His Worship: Up to five years ago Hodgman’s position was correct. Mr Anderson submitted that the Board had acted harshly in endeavouring to put Hodgman. out after eleven years’ occupation, simply because he was £lO 9/ in arrears. Mr Elvy stated that Hodgman had given campers the right to occupy sites adjoining that occupied by him, and some campers therefore objected to pay camp site rental. Hodgman was only looked upon as a camper, not as a tenant. His Worship said he considered the action trivial under the circumstances. Mr Anderson asked what benefit it was going to .be to the Board by putting Hodgman out. Mr Elvy said he could not say what the Board intended to do, and could not say whether Hodgman was an unsatisfactory tenant. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Mr Anderson submitted that it was a most trivial action on tho part of tho Board, and he could not understanu the Board wanting to put him out for a paltry 2/ per week, seeing that his client was an unemployed man. His Worship said he did not see that the plaint had been proved. The area had not been proved to be within his jurisdiction. It was a matter as to whether Mr Anderson would waive the question of jurisdiction. Mr Anderson said under the circumstances he would not waive the question of jurisdiction. His Worship: I am afraid 1 must enter a nonsuit meantime.