AN OPEN ROOF.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16908, 6 December 1922, Page 8

AN OPEN ROOF.

TENANT CLAIMS DAMAGES. A landlord who adopted Lhe novd method of removing the roof of a i dwelling in order to force a tenant to leave vras proceeded against in the ! Supreme Court to-day, before his Honor Air Justice Adams, for £209 general damages and £27 special damages. The plaintiff was John Phillips, of Christchurch, labourer, and the defendant L. V. \\ atson, oi Christchurch, carpenter. Air F. I). Sargent appeared for plaintiff. The defendant conducted his own case. Plaintiff stated that prior to August, j 22. 3 921. he was in possession of a i cottage at 79. Burnside Road. Fendalj ton. the property of defendant. He | had performed all his‘obligations regu_ , larly under the tenancy until August 22. 1921, when defendant unlawfully entered tlie premises and removed a portion of the roof of the dwelling. Rain entered the interior of tlie dwelling in large quantities on several occasions and caused considerable injury, inconvenience and discomfort to tenant and his family, who also suffered pther natural consequences of the removal of the roof. The plaintiff claimed judgment for £2OO general damages, £27 special damages, and costs of the action. The special damages were as follows : —Damages to groceries £3. linen £3. linoleum £6. furniture £ls. Air Sargent .said that the claim wa« one for trespass. The defendant could not get possession of the house owing to the War Regulations, plaintiff being a married man with .five children, and he had adopted the means of removing the roof in order to eject the tenant. Rain fell a. few days later and plaintiff and his family had suffered dscomfort and bad had to leave. He submitted that the high-handed and impudent action of the defendant entitled plaintiff to the damages claimed. Plaintiff gave evidence in support of his claim. Defendant removed the roof over the kitchen, scullery and bathroom without notifying anybody. Defendant’s mother also gave evidence. Corroborative evidence was given by Elizabeth Phillips, wife of plaintiff. Some of the children caught, colds as a result of the removal of the roof, and the doctor had to be summoned to attend one of the children. Cross-examined by defendant, witness said that she could not go out into the wet to remove the groceries and furniture. Defendant•• Why didn’t you remove the groceries before ? Witness: We did nob expect the rain. Defendant: Yes. but you know we must expect rain some time. You knew your husband did not want m? to touch the back part of the house before he vacated it?—Yes. Why didn’t you tell me that when J was on the roof ? Annie Alapston. sister of defendant’s wife, gave corroborative evidence. Defendant (cross-examining): Could you uot assist your sister in removing the linen from the water?—T ha 1 my own duties to attend to. Defendant, in his evidence, said that plaintiff had expressed willingness f, > allow defendant to carry out repairs t<; the house. Witness had approached plaintiff about getting out of the place and plaintiff said that he had other bouses in view. Witness put ois i whare on the property with the conj sent of plaintiff . Witness _ had intended raising the roof of the house, j but- the man who had been going to I assist- him had failed to puL in :-u I appearance. That was whv the roof j had not been replaced. | To Air Sargent: Tt was not his ob- | ject to. eject the tenants; he had not I completed the work of replacing the j iron because shortly after lie had oh j tained employment. He did not have the money to employ other labour to replace the roof. His Honor said that he did pot think that plaintiff gave defendant permission to remove the roof under tlie circumstances in which it was removed. When a man removed a roof in such a manner, it was idle to say that he acted in a bona fide manner under permission. His Honor held that defendant had acted in such a way in order to get possession. Judgment would he given for plaintiff for £25 damages with costs on the highest scale.