POSSESSION OF HOUSE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 9, Issue 71, 8 May 1946, Page 5

POSSESSION OF HOUSE

ACTION BY FARMER OWNER SEQUEL TO SHAREMILKING AGREEMENT A further instance of the difficulties of ownership was presented the Whakatane Magistrate’s Court yesterday when an Awakeri farmer, Roy Edward Butler and Alice M. Butler, sought possession of a sharemilker’s cottage occupied by Frank Thomas Hodge, with whom a prior sharemilking agreement had been, terminated.' Counsel in the case were Messrs. B. S. Barry and G. Otley for the parties respectively. Mr E.

L. Walton was on the bench.

Evidence by plaintiff (R. E. Butler) indicated that defendant had occupied the cottage for nearly two years under the terms of a sharemilking agreement which was based upon the usual Government terms. This agreement plaintiff said he had had reason to terminate owing to a refusal of defendant to carry out certain work, on February 28 last. Defendant had not done any work on the farm since then, had never paid any rent for the use of the cottage before or since. Plaintiff claim-' ed that having terminated the contract, and in view of defendant not having any protection under the Fair Rents Act, he should vacate the cottage and make room for the new man he had engaged.

To Mr Otley plaintiff admitted that Hodge maintained that the sharemilking contract had been wrongfully terminated, and also that under the agreement there was provision for submitting any disputes to legislation. He had not given any formal notice, but had merely instituted the proceedings. Defendant in evidence said he occupied the building with his wife and seven children. He had not received any notice but knew that plaintiff had terminated his contract. This he contended had been wrongfully done and the matter was now in the hands of the N.Z. Workers’ Union for requisite action. He admitted that he had a new place of employment to go to at the end of the present month. The Magistrate observed that as the contract was now specifically ended plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession irrespective of what later action might be instituted. The order would be made operative on or before June 1, and cqsts (£2 7s 6d) would be allowed plaintiff.