CLAIM FOR POSSESSION—WATT V. ARNOLD.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18822, 10 March 1931, Page 4

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION—WATT V. ARNOLD.

To the Editor of the “ Tlmaru Herald.” Sir,—May I, sir, presume upon your kindness and sense of justice and fair play, to correct through the columns of your valuable paper some wrongs and state my case in actual facts? I refer first to the report published in your columns of the claim for possession in the case: Alice Emily Watt v. Henry Arnold. (1.) In the Magistrate’s comment it was stated that two years ago I offered to satisfy the second mortgagee but that I had not done so. As a matter of fact at that time—in April, 1929, I did satisfy the claimant by paying up all I owed of interest, reduced the principal of £124/3/7 by £5, and paid costs amounting to something like £3. In all I paid the solicitor £25 on behalf of the second mortgagee. Again in November of the same year, I paid my interest bill of £4/1/- for the half-year. (2.) I deny that the second mortgagee has given me every consideration. The case was first brought on November 26th last, and the first intimation I received was a letter demanding possession of my house in six days. Not complying with the request, I was landed for the first time in Court on November 26th last. Now Sir, I should like to know why the facts brought out at that first hearing were not published, as was every other case heard that day. Mr Orr-Walker after hearing evidence, adjourned the case for us„ and the mortgagee’s solicitor and myself arranged matters for the time being. Through further unemployment I again got behind with my payments, and the solicitor brought the case on again, which was again adjourned by Mr Orr-Walker, to see if I could get some kind gentleman with means to take over the second mortgage. I did endeavour to approach a gentleman friend of mine, but unfortunately he was out of Timaru. He has since expressed his sorrow at not being able to help. Again, sir, the second hearing was not reported in your columns, though why, I cannot say. These are the facts: Mrs Watt, through her solicitor, claimed the full amount of principal, which was £124/3/7,, giving no credit for the reduction of principal bringing it down to £ll9/3/7. In Court, I challenged this statement and the lady’s solicitor quietly informed me that there was £5/19/- owing for advertising, and that he was thus 19/- out of pocket. I told the solicitor in Court that this was the first I had heard of it. I had cleared up the costs when I settled with the solicitor and any advertising was previous to this. He has the duplicate receipt. Seeing that I was not given credit for the £5 in reduction of principal, and claimed the full amount, viz., £124/3/7. I contended in Court, on July 11th, that I was not owing a year's interest as the £5 not credited me in principal, would reduce the interest by that amount. In these conditions the second mortgagee, through her solicitor, began Court proceedings over four months before the time, as under the terms of the mortgage, action could not be taken till I was twelve months in arrears, which I certainly was not at that time, and if credited with the £5 for interest I am not a year in arrears yet, but in March, 1931, will be only £7 instead of £B/1/- due for the year; and I have been in Court three times since November 26th, 1930. If this is giving me every consideration I fail to see it. As to my alleged failure to do my best, may I say further that between March, 1929, and January ,1930, in ten months, I paid the first mortgagee, the State Advances Department, a sum of £65 interest. The second mortgagee’s solicitor stated in Court that the property is deteriorating. This I emphatically deny. The place is in perfect order, inside and out, as anyone may see. I have, on a modest estimate, £2OO worth of choice bulbs in the ground, which I cannot harvest till May. The place is continually being improved. I have put up a piece of brick wall, and piers, I and an iron gate, since I was in Coitart

on November 26. Since Mrs Watt took the mortgage over, a new brick garage, with spare bedroom 24 by 12 has been erected; also a concrete path laid down. I would like to know better tenants or anyone who could have done more in the circumstances than I have done to meet my obligations. How many other unfortunate people in Timaru are in similar straits, I dread to think. —I am, H. ARNOLD, Senr. 59 College Road, Timaru, March 4.