A TENEMENT CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 46, Issue 14099, 16 April 1920, Page 3

A TENEMENT CASE.

DORSET v. LOCKWOOD. A tenement ease was heard in the Magistrate’s Court at Master ton yesterday afternoon, when Mrs Emily Dorset applied for an order for the possession of .a. house oceupied by Harold Lookwood. . Mr ]\. K. Burridge appeared tor the plaintiff, and Mr 0. Pragnell for tho defendant. Mr Burridye stated that the ground for the application was that no rent had been paid sinee November 15, ami the arrears amounted to £l3 2s (id. The plaintiff, in her evidence, stated that she had a house which required certain repairs. The defendant had taken possession of this without hex consent. She had previously offered him a house at Mauriceville for os per week, with milk and firewood thrown in. When witness found that defendant had taken possession of her house in Mastorton without her consent, she informed the police. She was advised to allow him to remain, and to accept the rent. This she eventually agreed to. The rent was to be 12s <>d per week. The rent was paid until -November 25 last, but not ’since then. The defendant asked for time, stating that he was going to buy a hotel, and. his solicitor would stand by him. The house was jointly owned by witness and her daughter. By Mr Pragnell: There was about half an acre of land with the house. This was worth about 3s per week. The house had never been let for less Jian 10s per week. Witness wanted the house for her own use, for storing purposes. She did not propose to let it to anybodv else. The Sanitary Inspector had told her that she could not let the house without water and drainage. There were three rooms m the house. Witness was aware that defendant had a family of five or six children. , , . , , . Mr Pragnell stated that he had intended counter-claiming under the War Regulations for a reduction of rent, but had been prevented from, doing so on account of shortage of time. He asked for an adjournment of the case, m ordei that he might counter-claim for a .reduction. It would be a considerable hardship on defendant if he were -evicted with his family, as lie was out of work, and had no place m which to reside. t . The defendant, on oath, stated that he was a married man, with a familj of five children, ranging in age from 16 to 4 years. His family was not healthy. There was about half an acre of land attached to the house in whidh he was residing. He had been endeavouring to find a house for a long time, but it was hopeless. He was not desirous of living in the house if he could net. another. There were only three rooms in the house. Witness proposed to bring an action against Mrs Dorset for a reduction of the rent. If this action went against him, he was piepared to pay the rent. By Mr Burridge: Witness was* endeavouring to raise the money with which to erect a house. He explained at length his transactions with Mrs Dorset, aneft-stated that he had taken possession of the house with her consent. The fruit in the garden had been removed by children, and by Mis Dorset. Witness had agreed to pay 12s rent, but understood that he was to receive a contract to improve the house. His Worship stated that he would adjourn the case until next Court day, to allow the rent to be fixed. He would then make an order for possession if the rent decided upon was not paid.