HOUSE SPECULATOR

Wanganui Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 160736, 24 August 1920, Page 7

HOUSE SPECULATOR

SUES FOR POSSESSION OF TENEMENT. JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT. A case presenting unusually interesting features in which a retired farmer named W. Townsend, a speculator in house property, sued for possession of a tenement in Wanganui, was heard before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., at the court this morning. The plaintiff stated that early this year he bought a house in Hardy Street for his wife in which the defendant, a waterside worker, was now living. The house plaintiff was living in, he had bought and subsequently sold to «a returned soldier. The latter was anxious to get married and live in the house. Plaintiff had no family, and being anxious to get possession of the Hardy Street property, he had done his best to secure a house for defendant. He had also offered to, lend him £ls to pay a deposit on a house on Durie Hill, Under cross-examination he admitted he had bought the house in Hardy Street, one in Nelson Street, and two in Bell Street. The latter three he had turned over within the last six months and had netted a profit of £440 out of the speculation. He also admitted that his income amounted to between £3 and £4 per week. The Magistrate, after hearing that defendant was a married man with two children, suggested to plaintiff that it would not be any hardship if he and his wife boarded more especially as they had the means. Plaintiff replied that he could not afford to live in lodgings and his wife had a decided objection to this course, as she was in a delicate state of health.

The Magistrate replied that it should suit her health as she would have no work to do.

Counsel for plaintiff relied on section 56 of the Housing Act; pointing out that it would be undue hardship for defendant to have to vacate the premises. He t also stated that the notice to quit was. not in order as it had been written by plaintiff stating that he required the house for his own use when it was the wife’s property. The Magistrate said plaintiff seemed to be a bird of passage. He was not satisfied that plaintiff wanted the,house for bona fide purposes. It seemed to be his practice to buy houses and live in them for a short time and then sell them, as shown by the fact that he had bought and sold three houses within six months at a profit of £440. The joint income of plaintiff and his wife aggregated between £5 and £6 per week, and it would not be much hardship for them to go into lodgings at 30/per week each. Judgment was entered for defendant with costs.