SOLDIER TENANGIES

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11251, 1 July 1922, Page 2

SOLDIER TENANGIES

NO DISTINCTION PERMITTED. SUPREME COURT DECISION. In. the Supremo Court His Honour Mr Justice Snlmond gave judgment in the suite of William Robinson v ArchPibald Laurie, an appeal from tho decision in the Magistrate's Court. Mr Skerrett, K.C., and Mr Stevenson appeared for 1 the appellant, and Mr Kennedy for the respondent. In his review of the evidence, His Honour eaid this was an appeal on law by a tenant against an order of ejectment made by a Magistrate's Court. The ap* pellant was a discharged soldier, and the question for determination was whether the special protection against ejectment which was conferred upon discharged soldiers by section. 13 of the War Legislation aiid Statute Law Amendment Act, 1918, had been continued by the amending legislation contained in the Housing Amendment Act, 1921-2, or had, on the contrary, been taken away by that Act. The appellant contends that that special protection still existed, Tire magistrate had adopted the opinion that the effect of this new legislation was to abolish altogether the former distinction between soldier-tenants and others, and to substitute a single, uniform law for the ejectment of all tenants* He. held, that is to say, that section 13 of the Act of 1918 had been impliedly repealed by section 9 of the Act of 1921-2. His Honour said that was the correct solution of a somewhat puzzling question. The special protection claimed by the appellant as a soldier-tenant was not, said His Honour, a pro-existing vested right having an independent existence under the earlier legislation. Such earlier legislation expired on February 28th, 1922, unless it had been continued in operation by section 9 of the Housing Amendment Act, 1921-2. Hie Honour said he was of opinion, therefore, that no part of section 13 ot the War Legislation and Stutute Law Amendment Act, 1918, had been continued in operation by section 9 of the Hemming Amendment Act, 1921-2. Soldier-ten-ants were now, in respect of all premises occupied by them, whether t»« dwellinghouses or os shops, in tho same position as nrvp other tenants. The appeal was dismissed, with costs «£5 ss.