MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 170140, 17 February 1921, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

TIMARTJ, WEDNESDAY, FEB. 16. (Before Mr E. D. Mosley, S.M.) DRUNKENNESS. Two first offenders for drunkenness were fined 10s each. CIVIL CASES. David Rodgers v. W. H: McKenzie, claim. £22. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, with costs. N. M. and A. Company v. E. and U. Probyn, claim £3l 6s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, by default, with costs. Ferguson and Co., v. John Blair, claim £1 3s 6d. Judgment for plaintiff, by default. G. 13. Lainborn v. F. Cameron, claim £1 13s. Judgment for plaintiff, by default. CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. C. J. Edwards (Mr Campbell) v. Miss E. A. Smith (Mr Rolleston), olaim for possession of a tenement. Mr Campbell said that plaintiff (was a married man with three children, and bavin greceived notice to quit the house in which he was living, in LeCren's Terrace, had bought the house in which ; the defendant was living. This was l last July, and defendant was still in the I house, of which plaintiff must now have ( possession for Jiis own occupation, as a summons had been served.on bun the previous night to quit the House ho was living in. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of counsel’s statement, and added that though the defendant had been offered another house she declined to talce it. To Mr Rolleston: When witness bought the house ho knew Miss Smith was living in it. Ho bought it subject to tlie tenancy. Plaintiff’s wife gave evidence corroborating that given by her .husband, and stating that she had been served with a summons the previous night to quit the house she was in. She had brought under the notice of the defendant another house which she could have got, but defendant would not take it. Mr Rolleston said that defendant kept the house as a boarding-house, and had so kept it for the past ten years. The house accommodated ten permanent boarders and seven casual boarders, besides defendant and her sister; and if the defendant were turned out she would be deprived of -her only means of livelihood. Sh e was paying £1 loa a week in rent, and was willing to increase this to £2 per week, while the defendant war only paying 80s for the liouso he was in. If an order were made, as asked, the greatest hardship would he felt by the defendant, and the effect would be to leave another empty house in Timaru, as the one defendant was in was not sold. The plaintiff was a returned soldier, and on this account the owner of the house he was in could not turn him out. There would be no hardship in the plaintiff remaining in the house where ho now lived, but there would be considerable hardship in turning the defendant out of the house in which she was living. The defendant was looking for another house, but so far she had been unable to get one. Defendant gave evidence in support of counsel’s statement. Mr Campbell contended that as the defendant pvas using the house as a private hotel the law did not protect | her. The case would be different if the | house were being used solely, as a pri- ■ vote dwelling. The plaintiff, as the owner of the house, was entitled to possession of it, and there would be no greater hardship on the defendant if slie vacated the house than to the plaintiff if ho were kept out of it. ! The Magistrate said there was always hardship on both sides in such cases. In this case the defendant was occupy- ■ ing the premises for business purposes, j but she was accommodating ten per- : manent and seven or eight casual boarders. This, added to tlie fact that it was very difficult to get board in Timaru, should be taken into consideration by the Court. The plaintiff was in a house, and if the Court were to make an order for possession there would be greater hardship on tho defendant than on the plaintiff. Under Hie circumstances no order would bo made. Mr Rolleston said that bis client would lost no opportunity of endeavour: ing to secure another house.