DRINKING ALLEGATIONS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19335, 27 May 1937, Page 14

DRINKING ALLEGATIONS

TENANT OF DWELLING LANDLORD GOES TO COURT A claim by a landlord for an injunction against a tenant to restrain him from drinking intoxicants on the premises being rented, from causing disturbances to the annoyance of the plaintiff and his other tenants, and from casting offensive matter about the,premises and damaging them, was brought in -the Supreme Court at Wellington on Monday. The sum of £2O as damages was claimed also. After the -plaintiff's evidence had been beard the case was adjourned sine die so that the tenant.might find another place in which to live. The tenant denied 'the allegations against him by his landlord.

The plaintiff was John Joseph Carroll, land agent, owner of premises at 302 Willis street, Wellington, in which he and the defendant, William Edgar Hawke, labourer, and two other tenants occupy apartments. The statement of claim, said that one of the conditions of the defendant's tenancy was that no liquor would be taken on the premises or drunk there. On November 28 and i December 4, 1936, the defendant entertained guests and a considerable amount was drunk. He and his guests became a nuisance and annoyance to tie other occupants of the building, singing and shouting so louu*y that they could not sleep, casting offensive matter about the walls, and damaging the premises. The plaintiff feared the conduet "would be repeated and asked for the injunction and damages. For the defendant it was stated that'one of the.tenOjnts, a dressmaker, was there only ir, the daytime. He denied that it was a condition of juis tenancy that there should not be drinking, on the premises. He admitted that he entertained guests on the two nights mentioned, but denied that anything but a small quantity oi beer was drunk Or that anybody was under the influence of liquor. The people present were respectable citizens and'did not cause the annoyance complained of.

Mr. Justice Smith was on the bench. Mr, J., Garbett appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. W. J. Kemp for' the defendant. - - "■'■/• .

After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff, His Honour discussed with counsel the prospects of settlement without the court proceeding further. Having been informed that neither the landlord wished to retain his tenant nor the tenant his occupation of the apartment, the judge remarked that it seemed a pity that he should have to hear long evidence and decide the issue. Counsel ior the defendant said the latter had tried without success to dbtain another place in which he could live., When both counsel had consulted their clients the case was /adjourned sine die, to be brought on after three months on. notice by either party, on the basis that both parties wished that the-tenancy-should-be- terminated and on - .condition, that, the defendant should continuously endeavour to obtain another dwelling. /