HOUSE PURCHASE

Waikato Times, Volume 193, Issue 22199, 19 November 1943, Page 2

HOUSE PURCHASE

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION SERVICEMEN’S WIVES AT LAW A claim for possession of a house 1 in Hamilton East was heard by Mr i S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magis- | trate’s Court, Hamilton, today. The , principals, Alma I. Barnett and Doris Smith, were the wives of servicemen at present overseas. <

Mr W. H. Adams, for plaintiff, asked the magistrate to determine a preliminary point as to jurisdiction. Wives of servicemen were protected under the Fair Rents Act Amend- i ment, 1942, against landlords who were not servicemen, but the law was not clear as to property acquired by the wife of a serviceman, bought with his money but registered in her name. There was no declaration of trust given by the husband. The magistrate said he would not | decide such a point offhand as sev- i eral points of law were involved. He | would hear the evidence in the | meantime.

The plaintiff said she bought the home with her husband’s funds as a home for herself and five children. , Their previous accommodation was i totally inadequate. During the pur- j chase negotiations Mrs Smith appeared agreeable to vacate the house -v of six rooms, but later she reused, and would not consider f. or 1 rooms. * \ Rooms Offered Rent-free

T- ' the meantime the six-roomed had been purchased. Mrs Si ,i was not using all of the premises and plaintiff offered her and her small daughter the two front rooms, rent free. This was verbally accepted, but when plaintiff arrived with her family and furniture Mrs Smith refused admittance. The furniture was taken to the house of a friend and plaintiff and her family went back to the one-room flat they had been occupying. She was to enter hospital for treatment, but could not leave her family in a oneroom flat in her absence.

To Mr F. W. Ashby, Labour Department inspector, plaintiff said she had sold and bought on behalf of her husband, using his money and credit.

To the Court, plaintiff said that while they were sharemilking their earnings went into a common fund, and savings were intended for a home and better conditions for the family. When she bought the Hamilton East property her husband was serving overseas. She did not know whether his name was included in the mortgage. Protection Submitted Mr Ashby submitted that under the Fair Rents Act Amendment, 1942, there was clear protection against eviction by the wife of a serviceman. Mr Smith was a serviceman within the meaning of the Act, and his wife could not be evicted. He added that Mrs Barnett was reasonably housed when her husband went overseas. The defendant, Mrs Smith, said she had lived in the house for 3} years, and her husband was serving overseas. She expected him home shortly, as his health was indifferent. She denied giving plaintiff the impression that she would vacate the premises. She had been negotiating to purchase the home and was surorised to find that Mrs Barnett had forestalled her. There had been no arrangement to share the house, nor had witness promised to give possession.

The magistrate reserved decision.