A PUBLISHER'S GRIEVANCE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXII, Issue 13604, 25 November 1904, Page 3

A PUBLISHER'S GRIEVANCE.

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES. Yesterday, at the Magistrate's Court. before Mr W. R. Haselden, 5.M.,. George Warren Ruslsell brought an action against Alexander Wildey for £25, damages for tho removal of goods from a room which the plaintiff was leasing .from the defendant, and for deprival of the use of a room in which the " Spectator," a paper published by the plaintiff, was issued. Mr Cassidy, for tho plaintiff, said that the case had been adjourned from October 31 in order that a question of title might be investigated. He quoted authorities to show that his client must be regarded as the defendant's lessee, and was entitled to damages sustained 'bv a.n illegal ejectment on September 19, 1904. Mr Johnson, counsel for the defendant, said that only four rooms had been leased to the plaintiff, three upstairs, used for printing purposes, and one on the ground floor, occupied as an office; but the defendant had actually occupied eight rooms, including one which he called his " sanctum," designated as No. 5, upstairs, and it was in regard to this room, which the defendant had used by sufferance, that the matter in dispute had arisen. . Tho Magistrate said thftt he would like to see a plan of tho building, and Mr Johnson remarked that it would be almost impossible to draw one. ''lt's an old boarding-house," said 'the plaintiff, "and there are two or threo aspects and frontages." "I'll go and seo it myself," stated Mr Haselden. Plaintiff, continuing his evidence,, said that he .had arranged with the defendant to take the rooms, which were necessary for his printing business. When ho first entered the building as a tenant, he had used for publishing purposes a room which he 'was not formally leasing, and thi3, eix or seven weeks subsequently, was let to a man named King, witness then taking the "' sanctum " (No. 5). He had remembered Wildey objecting to his taking No. 5, which was in. the front part of the building, the defendant then remarking that witness ought to select his roomo at the back of the building, and witness reviving that No. 5 was necessary for his business. Tho plaintiff then stated that the defendant was the sort of man who wanted to squeeze a tenant as soon as be got huh into his premises. Mr Johnson: Wasn't it the other way about? Didn't you start, like the Russians, to go over Afghanistan. "Wo won't, enter into political history," said the Magistrate. "You say that Wildey mad© threats against you?" continued Mr Johnean, addressing the plaintiff. "Haven't you made threats" against him of prosecution under the Stamp Act?" Mr Haselden mentioned that he had been reading a book of legal reminiscences the other day, and he had seen that matters introduced in prejudice always recoiled on the introducer. Mr Johnson asked for leave to road a letter bearing on the side issue. "WhvV asked the Magistrate. Mr Johnson: "To show that the plaintiffs evidence is not worthy of credence.' Tho plaintiff.: "Thank you." In reply to questions from Mr Cassidy, the plaintiff said that his tenancy of room No. 5 had never been interrupted, Wildey abandoning his claim, and leaving witness in occupation. . Mildred Russell, a daughter of the plaintill, said that on the day during which the furniture had been removed from room No. 5 she had been in her father's office and . had heard Wildey asking him to discontinue usintr it. Her father had replied that the room "was necessary for his business, and Wildey said that he would write. •" Almost straightaway " witness had heard an "awful row" upstairs, and the furniture of room No. 5. comprising a couple of tables and ohairs, some pigeon-holes and gas fittings was taken out. J. R. Brunt said that he had been business manager for the plaintiff, and. that the latter had used room No. 5, apparently with the defendant's acquiescence. Alexander Wildev said that on Jvovember 29, 1902, he had let to the plaintiff three, rooms upstairs, at the back of the building, and one as a front office, on tho ground floor, and that the plaintiff knew that these- were the only rooms allocated to him Witness had agreed subsequently to let the plaintiff use room -No. 5 on the understanding that he should vacate it whenever witness wanted it. Russell also took possession of another room on .the ground' floor at the back of the building, occupy-, in* it till March. The plaintiff gave up this room afterwards, but used several other vacant rooms until they were let to Kin* .'■ Witness let No. 5 for the use of a dressmaking class, and told the plaintiff, the latter agreeing to give it up, except for one dav a week, his publishing day. It was agreed in the presence of'Mra Russell, instructor to tho dressmaking class, who had engaged the room, that the plaintiff should' have the use of it on Tbursdavs. The -drcissmakcrs had used the room for about three months, leaving in about May, 1903. The room was then "anybody's room, as it was before." Tho plaintiff had resumed use- of the room, and witness bad requested him to surre,n.deir it. Witness had seen Russell, who was indignant about the matter, and refused to "ivo up tho room. There was a lot of irritation about the matter, and. witness said tbat.hei would' write a note to Russell ordering him to quit. .Witness had thought better of it, and had decided to clear the ' room out, a.wd had instructed his boys to remove tho. plaintiff's tilings from the room. Witness hid charged 12s for the rooms originally let to the plaintiff, and had charged 3s extra for the use of room No 5 but had subsequently written the last charge off his accounts, on the undcrstoidirV previously mentioned Witness had no°k«v to the room, and he thought that (he plaintiff had attached a lock to the door himself. .. Robert H. Lawrence, a printer, said that after the dress-cuttmg class had vacated room }To. 5 his employees had used it working a perforating machine, owned bv Wildev, there. Ho hod asked the permission of the defendant, but not- the plaintiff, to use the room. • ' i Isabella Russell said that she had made I an arrangement with Wildey by which she i wns to have the use of room No. 5 for a dr-ess-cutting class. No rent had been fixed, but 5s had been mentioned. She was ■ to'have sole richt to the room, ajid she had attached hir name to the door, and had gone into it in February, 1903. The plaintiff had asked her to have the use of . the room on Thursday, for publishing puri noses, and eh© had agreed to let him have ! it. He had eaid that, in consideration of this concession, he would allow her the use of the furniture there. She had paid £3 in rent for the. room. She had a key sometimes, and occasionally locked tho I room. I Charles E. Hoddinott, who said that he i waii a furniture manufacturer and valuator, stated that the articles removed from room [Xo. 5, by the defendant's order,, were of-

little value, a few shillings covering, the lot. The Magistrate said that he would defer his decision. ■ What lie would say now, ho added, was .that it appeared to him that the plaintiff had'unnecessarily rested on title, whereas he might -simply have rested on possession. It seemed to him that the defendant, had made up the plaintiff's case by admitting that tho plaintiff wa,s in a quasi-possession of the room, and that the defendant, being unable to obtain a readv acquiescence from tho plaintiff to a request that ho should vacate the room, had told him that he would give him a week's notice to quit, and immediately afterwards had changed his mind and had thrown out the plaintiff's not very valuable furniture. • There seemed, a, question, Mr Haselden continued, whether the defendant had, in law, justified his action. Mr Johnston submitted that tho plaintiff had definitely - and absolutely refused to give up possession of, the room. Wildey bad been at liberl y to change his mind after stating that he would write to the defendant, and it had not been nece.ssa.i-y for him to give notice. Mr Cassidv said that an ejectment must not involve, a, breach of the peace, and ho contended that, in the case 'in question, the defendant's action had caused a disturbance in the neighbourhood .of room No. 5. ' ~ . Mr Haselden said that ho would give judgment on December 1. -