TENANCY ACTION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18174, 21 August 1922, Page 8

TENANCY ACTION.

A MINISTER'S TRESPASS. TO PAY £200 DAMAGES. The hearing of the claim for £501 damages by Nellie Evans, a lodging house keeper "(Mr. E. G. Jellicoe) against the Rev. S. Robertson Orr and Mrs. Orr (Messrs. M. Myers and 0. 0. Mazengarb). on the ground that she had been deprived by trespass of the use of part of premises of which she alleged herself to be the • tenant, waa concluded in the Wellington Supreme Court on Friday. His Honor, addressing the jury, said that the issues were simple, although the hearing had been long. On March 1,6, Orr had made what was undoubtedly a contract with Mrs- Evans, the effect of which was that she acquired an optionto buy a house at 17, Bolton Street for £1900. but she was not to get a legal title for a year. As far as the purchase was concerned, there was no doubt of the legality of the contract. Rut the action was for damages for trespass after she became a tenant, and a person might become a tenant without any written agreement whatsoever. A tenancy was constituted by permission to enter .incl occupy a house, a person doing so and taking possession being a lawful tenant, and entitled to put out anyone who came into the house- That was the position taken up by Mrs. Evans. She went m with Orr's permission. . \ Trouble arose out of the action of Orr in arranging with the church managers, that they should have part of the land at the back of. 17, Bolton Street, and he allowed them to enter and fence it on. Orr clearly had no right to take part of the yard, to the whole of which Mrs. Evans waa entitled by the agreement of March 16, in which nothing was said of easements, and. a contract could not subsequently be added to or altered. If Onr had wanted to get part of the yar<3l back, he should have- entered' into a new agreement; but he wrote hex a letter in which ha said it did not suit him tc go on with the "proposal" to sell the Sroperty to her. There was no proposal. >rr had entered into a binding agreement, though in the box he had said he did not consider it more than a moral obligation But His Honor need not point out to the jury as business men and men of the world that it was a legal obligation on a legal contract. ~ EEs Honor reviewed the evidence as to whether Mrs- Evans was tenant of the whole house, or only part of it, and said he was forced to the conolusion that the evidence of tenancy of some of the rooms by the church managers waa of a very shadowy nature. But he did not wish the jury to accept Bis view of the evidence as to Mra. Evans* tenancy; it waa for them to decide. : If they decided that Mrs. Evans was a tenant, they must remember that the reparations made must only apply to the period of five days from May 27 to Jane 2, during which the alleged trespass waa committed, and they must consider whether it were a malicious trespass or one in the bona fide, though, mistaken, idea that the defendant had rights to act as he did. Even though it were found to be an act of trespass under bona fide misapprehension, substantial damages could still be rightly assessed. The amount of annoyance must be considered. Many people wpuld stand a good deal of annoyance for £100 a day. The juTy retired, and returned a verdict for plaintiff fop £200 damages.