Impecunious Tenant Sues His Landlady

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1073, 10 September 1930, Page 10

Impecunious Tenant Sues His Landlady

“SWINDLER,” SAYS S.M. EFFORTS AT EJECTION Special to THE SUN PALMERSTON' N., Today. ! So nupopular a tenant was Francis I'ainpbell that his landlady, Mrs. T. K. Sapwell, had the front door and j two windows of her house removed and even threatened to take the roof I off also, in order to make him leave. Campbell, however, in spite of being in arrears with his rent, preferred to sue Mrs. Sapwell for damages for trespass. The claim, which was heard in the Palmerston North Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, succeeded on a legal point, but the magistrate, Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M.. passed some scatching comment on ulaintiff. who. he stated, had been swindling landlords. His Worship held that defendant had used illegal methods to eject her tenant, but said that Campbell was in the house under false pretences. “As a matter of fact.” he said, "it is a pity there isn't some criminal section to deal with a case of this kind. It is a hard case, because were I to inflict, substantial damages, it would definitely encourage the swindling of Other landlords. I must notice that Mrs. Sapwell was taking an illegal action by removing the doors and windows, and had the tenant been a decent man 1 would have had no hesitation in inflicting substantial damages.” £SO CLAIM FOR TRESPASS Campbell, according to the statement of claim, on July 2, entered into possession of a dwelling in Ferguson Street owned by Mrs. Sapwell, under a verbal tenancy, terminable in one month. He claimed £SO on the ground that, defendant had unlawfully trespassed while he and his children were in peaceable occupation of the premises and removed the front door and two .windows, making the house unfit for occupation. Plaintiff, who is j,he father of six! children, stated in evidence that he | had paid the rent regularly for several! weeks until he got out of work, when I he fell into arrears. He received; notice to quit the premises, hut was 1 unable to get another house. About a j week later he was informed by his ! son that Mrs. Sapwell was removing! the door of the house and when he I returned, he found that two front 1 windows and the front door were miss- j ing. Mrs. Sapwell was on a ladder I beginning to take out one of the side windows. It was a cold, and witness removed a door from ! dow n the passage and put this against j the front entrance and tacked linoleum j over the windows. However, as a I result, of exposure his w ife and child- i ren had been taken ill. INTENDED TAKING ROOF OFF He had also received a letter from j Mrs. Sapwell stating that she intended i taking the roof off the house and also j removing the w indows and making | alterations. Subsequently witness j had been served with a summons for j the recovery of the premises and re- j covery of the rent. Cross-examined by Mr. McLeavey, who acted for defendant, witness ad- 1 mitted that since coming to Palmer-' ston North he had been put out of three houses for the non-payment of rent and that he ■tfas in arrears on a house before he came to this city. 1 •‘You’ve reduced to a pretty fine art the game of swindling the landlord,” lemavked Mr. AlcLeavey, after putting further questions. “There’s a. long trail of empty rentbooks behind you, isn’t there? I suppose since you’ve come to Palmerston North you’ve paid about, a month’s rent, a week here and a week there.” “I went into Mrs. Sapwell’s house with no bad intentions,” protested witness. Mr. McLeavey: No, you went in with a very good intention—the intention to live free. The Witness: A cheap house is what 1 want. Mr. McLeavey: “Well, you can't get one much cheaper than you are now, •■an you? WAS ON RELIEF WORKS Mrs. Sapwell stated that Campbell had told her he was a plasterer in permanent employment, whereas he was employed on the city unemployment relief works. “I submit that this is one of the most impertinent claims that have ever come before a Court,” said Mr. McLeavey. after lengthy evidence had been heard. “I have always thought lhat the height of impertinence was reached by Oliver Twist, but Mr. Frances Campbell. of Palmerston North, has him beat. We have heard from his own lips that he has been making a hobby of swindling landlords. I submit that he is nothing but an impudent adventurer and that his claim cannot be upheld." The Magistrate: You have infringed his legal right. Mr. McLeavey: Yes, that Is so, but I submit that in assessing damages, plaintiff’s attitude throughout must be considered. He got into that house by fraud and deceit and having got there, snaps his fingers at the landlord. “If the defence in this case succeeds, a landlord need not take any notice of the law, but can take it into his own hands and take away any material parts of houses to force the enants out,” declared Mr. H. Cooper, who conducted plaintiff’s case. NO SYMPATHY WITH SWINDLER The magistrate said that Mrs. Sapwell had certainly taken illegal means to get rid of her tenant, hut he thought it had been very hard for her. One has a certain amount of sympathy for those who are up against it.” he said, “but one has no sympathy with anyone who swindles and that is what this man has been doing. If one was to give substantial damages for this, an action that was really taken by Mrs. Sapwell acting under a misapprehension as to her legal position, one would be encouraging swindlers.” The magistrate awarded plaintiff 40s damages. Subsequently Mrs. Sapwell sued Campbell for possession of the house and rent, but the notice she had given him to quit was not in order, according to a section under the Magistrate’s Court Act and the magistrate could make no order.