TENANCY OF COTTAGE

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 48, 2 July 1947, Page 5

TENANCY OF COTTAGE

POSSESSION IN MONTH MAGISTRATE’S COURT DECISION The fact that he had nowhere to go did not save Hans Pederson, a former employee of Geo. Syme and Co. Ltd. from eviction when the company sought possession of the cottage he occupied at Edgecumbe. For the company Mr Barry stated that the cottage was a condition of Pederson’s employihent and was made available rent free. Since the termination of his employment Pederson had “squatted” in the building and refused to vacate it. The firm had a key man in view who would be available- only when accommodation was provided.

Mr Runciman, manager of the mill at Edgecumbe, said that Pederson had not been charged rent for the cottage. He- had refused to do a certain job, received compensation and had since not gone back to work. There were eight or nine .cottages and these were made available rent free to workers. Some of the better cottages were charged for.

The firm was five workers short and if the prospective key man could be housedjin the building occupied by Pederson this would mean .one less.

To Mr Otley, for defendant, Mr Runciman admitted that the cottage was in -very poor condition and that there was no# electricity or water laid on. The cottage was less than 150 yards from the milk No other accommodation was available as all the houses were occupied. Mr Runciman admitted that he “had not been keen on allowing Pederson into the cottage in question ,as he considered he might have •.trouble in getting him out.

Pederson stated that he had worked for the company and had tried to obtain the house. When he found that there seemed to be no prospect of this he gave notice and was then allowed to move in. At the time he refused to do the work allotted him he had been suffering from an injured ankle. For this reason the work, pushing trucks, was beyond him. When he had refused to do it Runciman had told him that if he could not push trucks he was of no use to the firm. He took this as a dismissal and had not been asked to go back. .

In answer to Mr Otley Pederson stated that his wife, daughter and a grand child were living with him. He had paid a deposit on a section in Whakatane and had tried to ob : tain a house in Tauranga, Taneatua „and Opotiki besides visiting land agepts. Though, he had made full .enquiries he still had nowhere to go. Asked by Mr Barry if he had agreed to leave the cottage on the termination of his employment Pederson replied, “Certainly not.”

Mr Walton,. S.M., stated that the defendant had , brought the position on himself. The cottage was occupied under special conditions. The Magistrate gave an order for the possession of the cottage within ; one month.