CONTINUED OCCUPANCY OF CONDEMNED HOUSE; MAGISTRATE’S VIEW

Wanganui Chronicle, 21 November 1950, Page 6

CONTINUED OCCUPANCY OF CONDEMNED HOUSE; MAGISTRATE’S VIEW

“In these circumstances the City Council had a duty to see that the man had a way of solving his problems before instituting these proceedings,” said Mr S. S. Preston, S.M., in the Magistrate s Court, Wanganui, yesterday, when told that George T. Howell, railway employee, charged with continuing to occupy a condemned dwelling at 89 Hakeke Street, was still without a State rental house. The Court was also told that Howell first made application for a State house in 1943. The case originally came before the Court on June 19, but was adjourned ■ on several occasions to enable a house ■to be allocated to Howell. The magistrate said that in the circumstances he could only convict defendant and order him to pay Court costs, 10s. The magistrate refused to allow the City Council costs for its solicitor. “This matter was last before the [ Court on October 23,” said Mr K. R. [Horsley, for Howell. On November 7 last he wrote to the manager of the (State Advances Corporation in Wan[ganui, advising that the Court was concerned about Howell not having been allocated a State house, and that the magistrate would require an officer of the department to attend the next hearing of the case and advise the position, said counsel. No reply had been received to this letter. He had been advised verbally, however, [that no further progress had been made.

The city solicitor, Mr C. F. Treadwell, said that defendant apparently wanted a house which would not cost more than a rental of 25s a week. This may be the reason why he had not been allocated a house. Other people on the same wage, however, were paying 30s a week. The Magistrate: That is where I wanted assistance from the department. The Court does not know the position.

The City Council had no intention of asking for a heavy penalty, said Mr Treadwell, but it wanted the matter cleared up. A closing order was issued in respect of the house in April and proceedings were instituted in June. Since then there had been five adjournments to enable this man to find other accommodation. The section under which the charge was laid provided for a maximum penalty ot £2O, and £5 for every day the offence continued.

The Magistrate: Was the State Advances Corporation asked to come here today? Mr Horsley said he had raised this point, but was told that the department was not prepared to come into Court. If a departmental officer was required, a subpoena would have to be issued.

The magistrate said that he wanted the assistance of the State Advances Corporation so that he would know the true position, but he was not going to waste time subpoening them. “The City Council has condemned the house and I do not know whether this man has been unreasonable with the State Advances Corporation, or whether they have been unreasonable with him,” the magistrate added. “The whole proceedings seem futile.” Mr Treadwell said that the council may adopt the attitude in future that if there were any further cases such as this, they would prosecute the owner.

The Magistrate: This seems to be a matter for the City Council to work out with the housing authorities. The State Advances Corporation will not come forward and say whether this man would be a suitable tenant and I do not know the position.

On the application of the city solicitor the me.gistrate fixed security to appeal at £lO 10s.