CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 2, 7 March 1947, Page 5

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION

EDGECUMBE FARMERS CASE DEFENDANT ORDERED TO VACATE Arising out of the accommodation shortage so general at the present time, a case for house possession was heard before Mr E. L. Walton, S.M., in the Whakatane Court last Tuesday. The parties were James Shaw (Mr Otley) farmer of Edgecumbe, * and Gordon Radford (Mr Suckling) his one time sharemilker who was? occupying a house on the farm without any right of . tenancy. Shaw the plaintiff contended that defendant had terminated his status as a sharemilker on December 4 last, when it was found impossible for Mrs Radford, for medical reasons to assist in the shed under terms of the existing agreement. He now sought repossession of the cottage which the Radfords had occupied ever since, and for which they, had neither been charged or had paid rent. He added that defendant had been engaged for milking and general farm work. Despite his advances, Radford had refused re-engagement and had taken work outside. The result was that he (plaintiff) *was now forced to carry out the milking pf 89 cows by himself with the help of his wife and school-girl daughter, as it was impossible for him to engage a new sharemilker until the cottage was vacated. His health was not good and although he had put ■ off the proceedings as long as possible it would be impossible for him to carry on much longer under existing conditions. Defendant said that he had worked for Shaw as from August 12 last until he had been instructed by the Doctor to stop his wife from going to the shed. Plaintiff had said that the position would, not suit him and that the agreement must end. He admitted that he had refused offers to go back and work in the shed himself, and added that he had tried unsuccessfully to find other work where accommodation was offering. He wtfuld leave just as soon as he could find such a job. To Mr Otley he had admitted having gone to work for other farmers in preference to helping Shaw. In giving judgment for plaintiff, the Magistrate observed that defendant had put himself in the position he was in by terminating his contract. There was no doubt but that plaintiff was entitled to an order for possession which would come into effect on or before April 11. Judgment with costs would be to plaintiff Shaw.