PRISON STAFF HOUSE

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume 79, 8 February 1944, Page 3

PRISON STAFF HOUSE

POSSESSION SOUGHT

EX-WARDER IN OCCUPATION

Te Awamutu, Feb. 5.

An application by the Prisons Department for the issue of a warrant for possession of a house at Waikeria Borstal Institute occupied by Philip Augustus Ray, a former warder, was heard by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Te Awamutu Court. Mr H. T. Gillies, Crown Solicitor Hamilton), appeared for the department, and Mr L. Tompkins (Hamilton) for defendant.

Mr Gillies quoted section 7 of the Prisons Act, 1908, which provides that any officer who resigns (as did defendant) shall quit the house occupied by virtue of his office, and if he fails to do so a warrant may be issued and possession taken even by force. Defendant had been employed at Waikeria for a number of years, and resigned on 17th December, the approval of the manpower officer and the Public Service Commissioner having been given. Ray refused to vacate the house.

If the provisions of the Fair Rents Act regarding tenancy of the house until other accommodation were found applied it would create an impossible position, said Mr Gillies. Defendant occupied a staff house at Waikeria, for which he was charged £3O a year rent. The normal rent would be £65 upward. Mr Tompkins contended that the Fair Rents Act impliedly repealed section 7 of the Prisons Act, and if the section was not so repealed it could be read in conjunction with the Fair Rents Act; further, it was not a house to which section 7 could apply by reason of the fact that defendant was not a permanent officer and thus did not occupy the house by virtue of his office. Counsel also alleged a technical fault in the citation of defendant. Defendant said that he had been on the temporary staff for 20 years. He had tried to get a house at Te Awamutu, but was unable to do so. He was anxious to get out of the house at Waikeria.

The magistrate said he felt he must make an order provided the proceedings were in order, which he doubted. He did not think the Fair Rents Act applied by reason of the fact that the dwelling was part of the prison building. He would look into the matter of procedure, and after all the legal processes had been carried out, and the fact proved, the department would be entitled to secure possession. He would reserve his decision, but defendant must be prepared to get out immediately. Under the statute there was no provision to hold up the warrant. . ,