JUDGMENTS FOR DEBT

Taranaki Daily News, 28 October 1932, Page 11

JUDGMENTS FOR DEBT

CLAIMS MADE AT NEW PLYMOUTH.

POSSESSION CLAIM ADJOURNED.

Judgment by default was given by Mr. R. W1 Tate, S.M.,,dn the following clainis for debt at New Plymouth yesterday f i’. Bates v.‘ L. A. Goldfinch, fiS 17s. 3d. (costs £1 4s. 6d.); Taranaki Butchers’ Union, v.. F. Main, £5 4s. (£1 10s. 6d.) ; same v. A. Mcßeth/ £3 ( £1 3s. 6d.); J. B. MacEwqu and Co. v. H. E. Keighley, £47 18s. Sd. ( £4 3s. fid.); Ta Kauri Paroane Heke v. W. Gear, £9 7s. Id. ( £1 12s. fid.). ! : A claim for possession a'nfl rent of a house and three acres in Bdyly Road was defended by Francis C. Raill. The magistrate decided to adjourn the matter sine die on condition that Raill paifl £1 10s. a .week (of which ss, would be off the arrears); otherwise an order for possession would be issued. The landlord was Mrs, R. M. McAsey, on whose behalf Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared. He said the rent.owing up till October 20 was £22 2s. lOd. at £1 ss. a week. The question to be decided was merely whether Rail! should be allowed to remain in occupation. He had been asked to vacate the property on one occasion in order that the landlord might occupy it. Raill’s failure, to pay rent had caused Mrs. McAsey to become seriously in arrears under a mortgage. Her rates and insurance were falling due, and there was no money to pay them. In addition, her husband was paying rent elsewhere.

Mr. C. H. Croker admitted the faets as stated, except that he had no knowledge of Mrs. McAsey’s embarrassment in regard to her mortgage. He pointed out that the mortgage was a returned soldier’s loan from the Crown, so that she would be doubly entitled to relief under that heading. Counsel understood the McAseys lived at Lepperton. The hardship on the landlord was not comparable to that of the tenant, Raill did arrange to pay £1 ss. a week fortnightly and paid regularly while in work, but since June 1 up till that day his total earnings had been £52 4s. 6>Jd. From June 1 to October 6 he had paid about £7 10s. towards rent. Up till November 28 the rent was , paid in full, ( but owing to' tile uncertain conditions of employment on the waterfront he had slipped back. Counsel said he was instructed that. Raill had materially improved the condition of the pasture land. ■ Raill, giving evidence, said ho had two children. ' He had cleared the ground in front of the house of couch. The good season was now coming on as far im waterside, work was concerned. He did not owe any other debts. Cross-examined, Raill said he could not pay anything off the arrears at present, but he considered he would be able to do so during the coming season if he received the necessary work on the waterfront, Mr. Croker maintained that .Raill had shown reasons why he should not be dispossessed. He was not in debt otherwise and there was reasons to believe he would be able to. pay arrears of £lB during the coming season. The landlord, suggested counsel, could obtain consideration from the Government as she was the wife of a returned soldier, and es, pecially as her tenant was a returned soldier, too. . . After further discussion Mr. Bennett said lie would be prepared to accept an order for possession, the. fhf

which would be suspended during the payment of ~£1 10s. a week.. Mr. Crokgr said , that offer, would - be accepted. The magistrate agreed to adopt the suggestion/