TENANT OR OWNER

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11293, 19 August 1922, Page 6

TENANT OR OWNER

A COMPLICATE! CASE boakdinohottsb-kbepbb SUES MINISTER. JB3OO DAMAGES AWARDED. The suit of Nellie Evans, a boarding-house-keeper, against the Rev. apd Mrs S. Robertson Orr, -was concluded in the 9ui>reme Court yesterday, before ;His Honour Mr Justice Salmond, and a jury of twelve, of whom Mr P. E. Paid was elected foreman. ’ ' ‘ , v Mr E. G. Jellicoe appeared for the plaintiff, and Messrs M. Myers and O. C. Mazengarb for the defendants. The evidence, which was of a most intricate nature, involved a claim for .£5Ol by the plaintiff, as damages; and the sundry allegations and counter-allega-tions were made as to illegal entry, possession, and dispossession. The case has been before the court during the entire week, tlie wohle of yeterday being occupied bv counsel on both sides in their addresses to the court. HIS HONOUR SUMS UP. His Honour, in summing up, %aid that the case, although it had been tlie subject of most exhaustive examination, was very simple in regard to the issue, and there should be no difficulty in determining it. On March 16th Mr Robertson Ot.t. said Hie Honour, had made what was undoubtedly a contract with the plaintiff, the effect being that Mrs Evans acquired an option to buy the house, 17 Bolton street, for .£I9OO, but not to get legal title for a year. Meantime, she was to have the right to go into possession at once as a tenant at a rent of per week; and for that option she paid the sum of .£SO in cash, and thus acquired an absolutely legal title to the option purchased. As to the matter of the tenancy, bow* ever, there was great doubt, said His Honour, of its being a good legal contract. What was actually involved in the case was & suit for trespass upon the plaintiff’s premises after she had become the actual legal tenant of the house. Reviewing the facts. His Honour 6aid t£at after Mrs Evans went into possession on April 3rd, everything had gone smoothly till May 23rd, when the trouble arose between the parties, due to Mr Git's arrangement with the church managers in regard to the small portion of ground—lso square feet —at the back of the house. Mr Orr, said His Honour, had entered into a binding contract for the sale of the property: and His Honour animad* verted upon the darker issues which had been injected into the case by the allegations of plaintiff's counsel as to Mr Orr's motives in destroying a document and cutting off his signature. The real issue, contended His Houoor, resolved itself into this:—On May 27th, when Mr and Mrs Orr entered upon the house and excluded Mrs Evans from certain rooms, who was in proper legal possession, they or Mrs Evans? If sho'was, then, 6aid His Honour, she was entitled to treat the Otts as trespassers, and trespass was the only issue before them. The tenancy of the church, contended His Honour, was of an exceedingly shadowy. nature; and it seemed fairly obvious from, the facts that Mr Orr was treating himself as being in possession of the front portion of the house: and on 6everral occasions his acts and behaviour were in direct contradiction to the supposition that he ha.d no rights in the house But what right had Mr Orr, if the church was the actual tenant, to ask Mrs Evans to accommodate several other tl?opilo on the premises, asked His Honour; and that very fact alone showed that the church was Teally not the proper tenant of the house, for no evidence had been brought forward to show* where the church's tenancy had begun nor how long its duration was to be. The trespasses complained of were of two kinds, the one when the bailiff was put

in, said His Honour, and the one "when the fencing of the portion of the land took place. The jury most consider really whether the annoyances of trespass during the five days were to be considered as worthy of £SOO damages. His Honour considered snch a . claim rather large. "We wouldn’t, any of ns, object to being insulted or annoyed at the rate of £IOO a day," eaid His Honour. (Laughter.) Tie jury retired at 6 o'clock, returning at 9.10 p.m. with a verdict for the plaintiff for £2OO. His Honour gave judgment accordingly against both defendants, against Mrs Orr in the form appropriate as for a married woman. His Honour, in allowing counsel’s fees, said he considered the case had lasted longer than had been necessary, and gave £7 7s for two extra days, with costs according to scale, witnesses expenses, and disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.