WAS IT LEGAL EJECTION ?

NZ Truth, 15 March 1924, Page 7

WAS IT LEGAL EJECTION ?

Tenant v. Landlord A Somewhat Composite Defence. An Englishman's home may be his castle perhaps, but m Wellington m these crowded days the home is frequently the merest caravanserai. In order that tenants may not he altogether at the caprice of landlords, legislation has been framed to give tenants some protection, and m its interpretation it has come to pass that the landlord has to use a deal of tact m ejecting a tenant, and frequently has to invoke the machinery of the law with those who hate shifting, albeit their rent hooks tell the tale of tardiness m paying up. High-handed actions by landlords are sternly discountenanced by the law. Hence it was that a big claim was put forward by Ida Mansfield, an ejected tenant, m . the Wellington Magistrate's Court this . week against George How, a par.t---l owner of an apartment house where . dwelt the plaintiff before February 4 I of this year, on which date How bunt died her effects into a fight-of-Way , at the side of the place, and, bolting the door, viewed through a window her r distress and the anger of her male . companion.

I ! The house is situated m Windsor I Place. At the end of November last . plainttff, a married woman living ' apart from her husband, took It over i at the rate of £3 a week and occupied i portion of it with a young son. The I remainder she sub-let On January i 26 payments for rent were getting be- • hind and How, alleging further that ■ the conduct of the place was not too I good, told her to get out In a week, or stay on if she chose at £4 a week. ■ On Monday evening, February 4, the ' lady came home from work and found t all her belongings bundled outside and , the house locked against her. She 1 secured other lodgings and then pros ceeded against How with a claim for I £150 general damages and £17 10s special damages. This was heard before Magistrate Riddell. Lawyer Leicester appeared for the lady arid I Lawyer O'Donovan for How. ' Plaintiff, whose hair is of auburn • hue, declared from the witness box • that sometimes How called for the rent • personally, but she objected to him ' doing so, and afterwards she sent her ' boy with the rent. > Lawyer Leicester: Why did you object?— Because he made improper sug- >' gestions to me. ' He caught hold of ' me once and I told him to take his ' hands off me.

Witness added that Bhe got behind i with the rent on account of the failure • of one of her sub-tenants to pay up. This was. a man named Hall and his i wife and children. The police were i constantly ln the house owing to the i conduct of these people and through debts they had contracted. When her clothes and belongings were thrown out a bottle of Ink was spilt ln tho confusion, and a costume, some sheets, and a nightdress belonging to her were damaged to the extent of the £17 10s claimed as special damages When she arrived home on the Monday evening, and How saw she had a man 1 with her, ho rushed Inside, bolted the 1 doors, and spoke to the man through '■ a window. Her nerves were bo upset ' after the affair that sho couldn't go to work for a fortnight. Lawyer O'Donovan: Who was the man with you? — A Mr. Anderson, a 1 friend of mine. Did he live with you ? — Certainly not. When was he there? — ho has been In my company every night since ; January 6. 1 Havo the police ever been to your place ln regard to your conduct of the ' house? — Certainly not. Witness In- • sisted that lt was the- Halls who were 1 responsible for the police being at the 1 place so frequently. Do you know that tho sub-tonants complained of Anderson being about " tho house? — No, 1 do not. Did How spoak to you about it? — 1 No, on my oath (and hysterically) God is my judge. • His Worship: Wait a moment. Don't elaborate it. 1 Did any other man besides Anderson frequent the house? — No, not that I know of. 1 And you earned £2 a week as a Waitress? — Yes. How much did you get for tho rooms 1 you let? — Forty-two and sixpence altogether — when the Halls paid. And you paid £3 for rent? — YeH. Then how did you live? — I had all my meals at Kirkcaldle's, where I was ' working as a waitress. My son earned a few shillings selling lollies ; at Fullors' and my brother sends me a few shillings sometimes. He has 1 sent me £3 10s since I have left my hußband. 1 The next witness was Lawrence Stanley Anderson, a smartly-dressed, nolldly-built young man who practices , tho profession of a mutton butcher at Petone. He was often at Mrs. Mansfield's placo for supper, ho said, but always loft before ton o'clock. Lawyer O'Donovan: How often did • you visit the lady?— -Every evening. Why did you go so frequently?— l ■ was asked. Have you ever been thoro for broak- < fust ln tho morning? — No. : Can you explain, then, why other l j boarders should havo complained about ) I you going.' about at breakfast timo ln

a partially undressed state?— lt Is a tissue of lies. There is no truth ln It at all. She is a married woman, as you know, of course, and you went to see her every night?— Witness said he knew all about It. Lawyer Leicester: Were you over thoro on a Sunday morning?— Witness recalled that he was once there early on a Sunday morning. He had been to tho baths for an early dip and looked ln on tho way back. Ho was doing some club swinging with Mrs. Mansfield's boy. At this stage tho mattor of tho defence that plaintiff's conduct of the house warranted her ejectment was adjourned for a week, and arjyument was heard on tho point of whether the notice to quit within a week was valid, and. even if lt was, whether How had tho rlnht to eject the tenant. On thi« matter his Worship withheld Judgment, preferring !o hear tho other defence and to JuUko thc whole mattor on lis merits. ' ' — ' ______ —