Magistrate Refuses Order For Eviction

Northern Advocate, 6 September 1939, Page 3

Magistrate Refuses Order For Eviction

“To ,ask a man to take his family back to a place he has left for health reasons is an unfair proposition,” said Mr G. N. Morris, S.M., in the Whangarei Magistrate’s Court yesterday, ' The magistrate made this comment in refusing an eviction order sought by James Frederick Street Briggs, solicitor, as executor of the estate of James Jackson, deceased, against Leslie Gordon Egginton, a taxi-driver, driver.

In support of his application, Mr Briggs, in evidence, said the house had been occupied by Egginton since 1933, but he (Briggs) now wished it to be occupied by an employee who was to carry out repairs. He had kept a house in Walton Street vacant since the date of notice, but Egginton had refused to take it.

To Mr G. A. C. Adler, of the Labour Department, who opposed the application, Briggs said his employee was concerned with rent collection and repairs on behalf of the estate practically all his time. The employee, Jackson Sutcliffe, described the house offered to Egginton as suitable for children, those in the neighbourhood being healthy. One child had won a prize in ,a show. He worked one or two days each week for the estate, from which he earned an average of 35/- a week, Sutcliffe told Mr Adler. He was a beneficiary in the estate, and was occupying a combined house and shop, the shop being let. Egginton gave evidence that he was married and had four children. In 1933 he had moved from a house in Walton Street, near that which he had now refused. While in Walton Street, his children had always been sick, and a doctor had advised him to move them to higher ground. Since following that advice his children Lad improved in health. To Mr Briggs, Egginton said he had endeavoured to find another house. He had no objection to moving if he secured a suitable house.

When Mr Adler addressed the Court on questions of hardship and tenancy, the magistrate said that if the evidence of the doctor was as good as the certificate produced, and was unshaken in cross-examination, Eggniton probably had a good case on the question of hardship. Dr. H. F. Buckley said Egginton had removed the family from Walton Street on his recommendation, the children’s health having deteriorated when he took up residence thei’e. He did not think that any father should, willingly move back to that area, which was low-lying and damp. Better on Higher Ground.

Any children occupying the area would be better on higher ground, said Dr. - Buckley, in reply to Mr Briggs. He did not know of any special sickness among children living in that area.

“Are you aware there was no ’flu there in the 1918 outbreak?” asked Mr Briggs. “I was not there at that time, but I consider if there was no ’flu at that time, it was more good fortune than anything else,” replied Dr. Buckley. “Generally speaking, I would not recommend that area for children, as they would be better on higher ground.”

Replying to Mr Adler, Dr. Buckley said the illness of the. Egginton children had nothing to do with influenza. He described the difference between influenza and the complaint commonly named ’flu.

“The position is that this family has actually lived near the house which it is now proposed to' provide for them, and while there they suffered from chest complaints,” said the magistrate. “To ask a man to take his family back to* a place he has left for health reasons is an unfair proposition. The application will be dismissed.”