Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

POSSESSION REFUSED

STATE HOUSE TENANTS

PROTECTION FOR SOLDIER S

WIFE

Proceeding's for the recovery of rent arrears amounting to £32 5s 3d and also possession of house, were instituted by the State Advances Corporation against Version H. Kemp a member of the New Zealand Armed Forces, before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., in the Wliakatane Magis_ trate s Court last Tueslday, Mr Walton offered immediate judgment for the arrears but definitely refused the order for posession. Mr. Suckling for the plaintiff, said he was acting on instructions. Defendant hart nOt paid a penny rcviit since last August. He had made all sorts of promises and had not honoured them. His, appeal for assistance. from the Soldiers' Financial Assistance Board had been rejected on the grounds that his present position was already sufficiently remunerative. Ihe Magistrate: Wlio is occupying the house now? Mr Suckling: His wife! The Magistrate: AVherc do you propose she should go—On to the. street? Mr Suckling: The plaintiff's are not concerned where she goes. The Magistrate: I should say they should show relative hardship the same, as anybody else. Mr Suckling: The hardship is that they arc not getting any rent, and others willing to pay are clamouring for accommodation.

The Magistrate: I'll give you judgment. for rent. But you're asking me to l put a soldier's Avil'e 011 to the street—and its a Government corporation asking for it. Mr Suckling: Its a question of principle. There is a growing belief that Avhen a man goes into camp he does not have to rent. The Government has had no satisfaction whatever from this man. Counsel then read letters exchanged between the parties -in which Kemp had promised to meet his obligations to the extent of 2//<> per week. This he had failed to do. The magistrate said, that the onus was still on counsel to show that the hardship on the Coloration was greater than the hardship on the defendant and his wife. Mr Suckling: I submit it is a hardship to be continually summonsing a man who will not pay. The. Magistrate: You have all the remedies that the law prescribes. Why can't the Corporation take steps to obtain an allotment. Mr Suckling thcn_ asked, for an adjournment for one month in which to' ailow him to obtain further instructions.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/BPB19430604.2.19

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 78, 4 June 1943, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
384

POSSESSION REFUSED Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 78, 4 June 1943, Page 5

POSSESSION REFUSED Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 6, Issue 78, 4 June 1943, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert