RENT AND WORK

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23220, 18 June 1937, Page 5

RENT AND WORK

TENANT'S UNUSUAL STORY

LANDLORD'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS

A story of an arrangement by which a tenant allegedly consented to have his rent raised by 10s a week on condition that his landlord provided him with 12 months' work was told in the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Roderick Donald Polson, a retired farmer, proceeded against Albert Peters, a painter, claiming possession of a tenement and also £36 19s 6d as arrears of rent for 35 weeks, less 5s 6d paid on account. The defendant coun-ter-claimed the sum of £ 146 14s. as damages suffered by reason of the plaintiff's alleged breach of a contract, whereby the defendant was to pay 25s a week rent and be given a "-year's work at 16s a day. Mr J. R. Bartholomew, S.M., who was on the Bench, gave judgment for the plaintiff. Mr F. B. Adams appeared for the plaintiff and the defendant was represented by Mr W Ward. Mr Adams said he understood the defendant did not deny that the rent was owing, that the necessary notice had been given under the Fair Rents Act, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment on the claim for rent and for possession. The defendant had entered a counter-claim, but counsel contended that the court had no jurisdiction to hear it, as notice o| the counter-claim had not been filed two clear days ahead of the hearing as required by the statute. The original day set down for the hearing of the case was Tuesday of the present week, and notice of the counter-claim was not served until Monday. Mr Ward said that Saturday, which was the last day available for the serving of the notice two clear days ahead of the hearing, was a court holiday, and in such cases it was permissible to file on the next available day. The magistrate reserved the point. Mr Ward said that some years ago the defendant rented a tenement in King Edward street from the plaintiff for 15s a week, but it was in such a condition. that the defendant had to put in three weeks' work and spend £ll 14s to put it in order. When he had lived there for about 18 months, and was £l9 or £2O in arrears, the plaintiff said he was going to raise the rent to 25s a week, and an arrangement was made that the defendant should pay that amount if Poison gave him a year's work. That work had not been given in full measure, however, and consequently the defendant had not been able to pay the increased rent.

After the defendant had given evidence, Mr Adams asked for a nonsuit on the grounds that the contract alleged ,by the defendant was not in writing, and was therefore not enforceable-

The magistrate said it would be desirable for the plaintiff to • give evidence.

The plaintiff denied that the contract had ever been made, and stated that all along the defendant had understood that the rent would have to be raised.

"It seems that the technical point on the nonsuit raised by Mr Adams is fatal," said the magistrate, when giving judgment. " The defendant gives a story of an unusual arrangement by which he was to receive 12 months' work if he paid 25s a week rent, but the plaintiff did not have that much work, to give him. The plaintiff has denied that arrangement, and he seems to put the matter on a much more reasonable footing. It seems to me that, in brooding over the affair, the defendant has convinced himself that a diff eren'" arrangement was made."

The defendant was nonsuited on the counter-claim, with costs (£7 6s). An order for possession was made, to take effect from July 8, and judgment was entered against the defendant for the amount claimed, £36 19s 6d, with court costs and solicitor's fee.