SOMEWHERE TO LIVE.

Northern Advocate, 31 January 1922, Page 3

SOMEWHERE TO LIVE.

THE HOUSING DIFFICULTY APPLICATIONS AND ORDERS AT COURT WELLINGTON, This Day. In the Magistrate's Court a largo number of tenement cases were ventilated before Mr F. Iv. Hunt, S.M. The first case called concerned a woman wiili two children, who desired to obtain possession of a house which was tenanted by a man, his wife, and rwo children. Evidence revealed the fact that the plaintff was the possessor of fourteen houses, but that she had been staying with "friends" on account of not being able to get possession of hr,r own house, although she had offered the present tenant several houses. The Magistrate: "You do \ gr*at deal of jobbing in houses apparently." Counsel for plaintiff stated that the Act was now on its last legs in the Jlouse. The magistrate: "Well, perhaps Iv!" wa'.t until the legs are cut." Def'.-nrl-ant'said he was a clerk. All tin otlnr offers made by the plaintiff, he contended, were not bona fide, and she only wanted to get rid of him out of the house. The magistrate: "There is no undue hardship in your case. . . . You are protected by legislation." The case was adjourned for a period of six week? in order to see if the tenant could find another place. The next case dealt with wa« a man who bought a house and paid £10C on it, the time being the essence of the. cor tract. He was unable to pay, avd the vendor allowed him to stay on if 'nc paid £2 5s per week, but tin war ic-£' ; slation fixed the limit at £i. Mr Leicester, for the tenant, -'atel thai his client had ten children, and vis certainly labouring under "undue hardship. '' The magistrate: "How long has he i}"i:n in the house?" —"S : x months, sir " The magistrate: "Well h? has ha:! his hundred pounds' worth. . . .There is no reason why the owner should keep thi man." It was finally decided, on behalf of defendant, to accept one month's notice. It another case the owner of a house, when in the box, said: "I called on th: tenant for the rent, and he said, "Call Oack in four days.' I went back, nr, uiid he said, "O call back in another four days," and when I went back he had the audacity to sav, 'Well, you will get it if you are "lucky" on Saturday.' " The evidence showed that the plaintiff had served a notice to quit on the tenant, but had failed to give the clear month's notice. In non-suitiug the plaintiff, the magistrate said ,lini. 1 lit* notice was not in order, and he would have to serve a fresh notice and wait another month for possession.

The Magistrate ordered possession to be given in one month to a wharf labourer who had purchased a houso in August last, but who had been unable to gain possession, and was obliged to live in two rooms. In addition, he wv? obliged to support his wife's mother.