Feilding Tenement Case

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 84, 8 April 1941, Page 2

Feilding Tenement Case

ORDER FOR POSSESSION MADE The Feilding tenement case in which Mrs. Annie Richards sought possession of a cottage in Carthew Street, from R. Alison, motor mechanic, of Feilding, was mentioned again at the adjourned hearing before Mr. R. M. Watson, S.M., at the Feilding Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Called upon to state the action taken since the adjournment of the proceedings on Tuesday last, Mr. J. Graham, for the defendant, said that in accordance with the magistrate’s direction he had applied to the Clerk of the Court for particulars of the house which Mr. Watson had stated was available for purchase. As the time was short counsel had requested early information respecting tho price, etc., of the house. The clerk of the Court had replied that the house was one situated in Denbigh Square near that occupied by the magistrate. No information was available as to the terms of sale or the price and counsel was referred to the owner for theso particulars. Counsel went on to state that ho had ascertained that the house was available for purchase at £9OO, the terms being £4OO cash and the purchaser to take over the mortgage of £SOO. The price and terms were quite bevond the means of his client, said Mr. Graham.

The magistrate stated that he had interviewed the owner since the last sitting of the Court and had ascertained that the house was available for letting. Continuing, counsel said that at the hearing, when examined as to what money he had to invest in a house, the defendant had stated that ho had £IOO. It was his mother-in-law who had £IOO for such an investment, whereas defendant’s means were much less, amounting to probably about £4O. It •was quite beyond his power to buy this property. Counsel for plaintiff had intimated particulars of a property of four acres iu Port Street being available tor purchase but this was quite out of the question. The defendant, said counsel, had the right to ask for some reasonable time to enable him to make arrangements for tho shifting of his family. Court proceedings were taken less than a week ago and Mr. Graham submitted that this gave, defendant no time to make his arrangements. He suggested that the Court was entitled to consider the relative hardship to defendant’s wife and mother-in-law whose two sons had gone overseas. Mr. Graham went on to state that the property which defendant was required to vacate was in the name of the wife of Frederick Herbert Richards who, counsel was instructed, was a wealthy farmer. He had recently sold some 200 acres of land at Colyton and received somo thousands of pounds for the sale. He understood that Mr. Richards was still living on the farm and that the purchaser had told Mr. Richards that he was not in a hurry for the house and he did not mind how /ong Mr. Richards remained there. The Magistrate: Surely you know tho procedure in these cases, Mr. Graham? - ~ , Counsel confessed that he well understood the procedure, but recalling that tho original hearing was less than a week ago suggested that there had been urgent haste in the matter. Tho magistrate replied that there had not been urgent haste and that six days was a reasonable time for defendant to take action. Counsel expressed fear that his elient together with his wife and two childieu as well as his mother-in-law would bo put out without having had a reasonable opportunity of obtaining other accommodation. There was the question of hardship. The Magistrate: How does that come in? “If Richards is in the position, which he is in, it would be no hardship if he remained on the farm to give this man. ail opportunity to look around for a suitable house,” said counsel. “My application is that this matter be adjourned until the next ordinary sitting of the Court and if the Court thinks that tho facts I have mentioned are substantiated, then it should give this man at least six weeks or two months to look round for another place. Mr. D. C. Cullinane, for plaintiff, opposed any further adjournment. He denied the argument that efforts were being made to push the defendant out without adequate notice. The defendant had been told in January that the house would be required and had been served with written notice on February 17 to vacate tho premises. As the Fair Rents Act did not apply it was not proper to raise the question of hardship. There were no grounds for any further adjournment and defendant had not brought along any evidence to support his case for further consideration. Counsel for defendant said, that if tho Court desired he could produce the evidence. The case had ueen heard on Tuesday last and counsel suggested that it was a matter of indecout haste. Mr. Cullinane went on to say that however sympathetic the Court may be towards tho mother-in-law whoso sons had gone to tho war, the proceedings wero legal and ho had the right to an order for possession.

Mr. Graham refuted tlio suggestion that ample notice had been given. The notice to vacate had been issued on February 17 and the summons issued immediately on the expiry of the month, namely, on March 17. Tho defendant had told the court that he had inquired of land agents for a house—in fact had used every endeavour to secure another nouse -without success, and that was the outstanding feature of tho case. He nad done everything possible and only asked for reasonable time.

Tho magistrate said that plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession. He had given a short adjournment to enable defendant, to make further inquiries and if Mr. Graham wished to place before the Court additional evidence tho magistrate was prepared to hear it.. Meanwhile judgment would be entered for plaintiff and an order made for possession on or before May 6 next, together with costs.