ACT OF 1737

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 29 July 1932, Page 6

ACT OF 1737

UNUSUAL RENT CLAIM WON DOUBLE VALUE AWARD On a claim based on. the, provisions of the Distress for Rent Act passed nearly two hundred years ago, in the reign of George 11., under a section described by Mr T. B. McNeil, S.M., as “a relic of the past,” James Dean Davidson, .a landlord, has succeeded at the Wellington Magistrate’s Court in establishing his right to obtain from his tenant, W. A. Hamilton, double tlie value of bis furniture, owing to the fact that Ilamiliton Avas held to have removed it from Davidson’s house when he knew that Da\ - idson intended to seize it by way of distress for arrears of rent reports the “Post”. Mr McNeil, who heard the case, also held that in addition to the sum of £lB5 Avliich Avas Da\ f idson’s estimate of the double value of the furniture, Hamilton Avas apparently liable for arrears of rent amounting to £62. Although Mr McNeil held that the plaintiff Davidson must succeed in his action, he reserved the matter of fixing the amount actually to he paid hy the defendant Hamilton until the position had been discussed hy the solicitors for both sides, and the defendant had had an opportunity of giving his estimate of the value of the furniture. Mr McNeil said lie Avould like to hear argument as to Avhether or not both rent and double A-alue could, under the cric-umstances, be claimed.

At the hearing of the case counsel for the defendant contested both the claim for rent and the claim made under the proA-isions of Section 3 of the Distress for Rent Act, 1737. Counsel contended that as the section enacted that the action was to be brought in the Courts therein mentioned (the predecessors of the present High Court) the action in New Zealand should he brought in the Supreme Court, as being the tribunal of equivalent jurisdiction to the Courts named in the statute. He argued that the Magistrate’s Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case.

In delivering reserved judgment, Mr McNeil said that although there Avas apparently no reported case of an action brought in Ncav Zealand under the provisions of the Act the statute was included in the list of Imperial statutes in force in this Dominion. The Act, he said, was treated as in force in NeAV South Wales in 1850.

By Section 27 of the Magistrate’s Courts Act, 1928, civil jurisdiction Avas conferred on the Magistrate’s Court for actions of debt Avhere the sum claimed did not exceed £3OO. The present action Avas for debt for an amount under £3OO and, but for the amount, Mr McNeil thought it could, in England, (AA-here the limit Avas £100), liaA'e been heard in the County Court. He could see no reason Avliy the Magistrate’s Court could not hear it, and therefore Held that it had jurisdiction to do so.

Mr McNeil held that the plaintiff had established proof of fraud. The defendant, he said, had undertaken not to remoA-e his furniture from the plaintiff’s house until settlement Avas made in connection Avitli the arrears in rent. On 11th April the defendant received a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor informing him of the intention to seize the furniture by Avay of distress for arrears of rent. Immediately on receiving the letter the defendant removed the furniture from the premises Avitliout the plaintiff’s consent. That, in Mr McNeil’s opinion, had been done with the object of evading the distress.