WHICH HOUSE !

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 7, Issue 32, 10 December 1943, Page 5

WHICH HOUSE !

ACTION FOR POSSESSION

V LEGAL UPSET

Th e court smiled (unofficially) last Tuesday when an action for possession of a house at Matata collapsed under a purely technical point of identity, as far as the section upon which the house was situated was concerned. It was one of those boring casej| which give, grey hairs to the Native land, court judges, and involved well over a dozen part owners to the house., whose interests ranged from a tenth share to infinitismal fractions thereof. The story was that the joint owners who had deputed one of tlieir number Thomas Potter to act on their behalf sought a court order to evict Windy Mitai another part, owner who it was alleged had simply walked in and taken possession. of the house without any colour of right or authority and thereafter refused to budge.

Mr B. S. Barry appeared for the complainants and Mr R. F. Smith for llie defendant.

Thomas. Potter in evidence gave details of the deeply involved ownership of the house: and said lie was acting on behalf of the family. JMitai he said had no authority to enter the house nor had he paid any rent. To Air Smith he described the section upon which the house stood as 998 Township of Matata. Mr Smith then produced plan and evidence, to show that the house was not situated upon the section specie tied and asked for a non-suit on the grounds of a baseless charge. Air Barry said, that his information had led him to believe, that the house was on the section named, and asked for the: wording to be amended, Mr Smith strongly olXjecting. The Magistrate (Mr E. L. Walton): "I'm afraid I can't do that, Mr Barry, it looks as if you will have to start, all over again." Mr Smith then capped, his win by asking and receiving the right to claim witnesses expenses in the case, involving two women. The court smiled.