OWNERS AND TENANTS

Taranaki Daily News, 17 October 1931, Page 9

OWNERS AND TENANTS

CASES OF HARDSHIP. EVIDENCE IN SYDNEY COURT. Interesting sidelights on tho way the depression in Australia has affected property-holders and tenants alike were brought out in evidence at Kogarah Police Court, when several tenants applied for the postponement of ejectment orders on the grounds that they were in impoverished circunistarices. A plumber said he had been out of work for 11 months, during the whole of which time he was on the dole. He owed £44 5s rent. His wife was a midday waitress in the city, and earned 19s 4d a week, out of which about 7s a week had to be taken in tram and train fares* Tlie agent for the owner said that she had informed him that her husband had had to mortgage the property in which applicant lived. 'She had other properties in Marrickville, and all were vacant. The second application was by a shipping clerk, who said he-had been out bf work and on the dole during 15 months, during which time he worked only a fortnight, although he often walked into Sydney in the hope of getting work on the wharves. He owed £22 odd. Tho owner said that he was 70 years of age next birthday, and was not able to work. The tenant owed him £42. and ho had been trying to get him out since June. He had another house, but it was untenaiited for the past four months. His two sons advanced him £1 a week each, and he paid. 32s 6d board and lodging. If he got the house, thp man with whom he was lodging- would take £1 off the 32s Gd he paid hiin. • ' The third applicant said he had been out of work' and on the dole for two years. . . ’Che owner said that he was a tailor s cutter, but had been away from the trade for 18 months. He had five other properties, but interest on mortgages and rates ate up all he got from them, and he had no other source of income. He paid £lB3 in interest, and in rates £55 per annum, and owed more than £BO in rates and about £4O in interest. In each case the magistrate held that while the applicant was in impoverished circumstances, lie was also satisfied tliat to grant the application would inflict undue hardship on the owner and he refused an extension of time.