TEST CASE.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17469, 1 June 1922, Page 6

TEST CASE.

RETURNED SOLDIER TBUft» / V v ■ - (VKKsS ASSOCIATION TELK^, WELLINGTON, i, The hearing of an impoiS* caso was commenced in Court to determine tection yevi'ously afforded to wj* soldier tenants against «jetf2* landlords was repealed by aeSi ■ '. ■ the Housing Amendment M wjf I The case is ono in which AjAy Lawrie, landlord, • prowe<ied jT!I Magistrate's Court against \ffc Kobinson for possession of a isjbW dwelling in Newtown. (Mr F. iC. Hunt) made VStt' ejectment so that tne'ratter ,«* be taken to the Supreme Cwrt I? test action on behalf of Ko\w* % Mr C. l\ Skerrett, K.C., T\ appellant, said during flie Wtt **' tenants, whether soldiers or a* soldiers, were protected by W£ restricting the rent payable. Tim u of INB added, in the case of ufi or soldier's dependents, ijrotgZ against ejection, so long as'tha m was paid and the terms of ib« complied with. Counsel traveled «k effects of the various ittwadmenti j the law relating to tenants, Thebitt Act created a new ground on tikk an order for ejectment cou,W tostej against a tenant, but Mr SkJrrStc» tended that Parliament new jstjtfai that the right of soldier teujb b special protection filtould '&» away. .;• "■•-;/ . His Honour, in cal definitions and distindja jf the Acts, asked': Where a is occupiec V>y a soidior, Ywi <» tion 9, '1921 Act hare any ttakttn to it and would that snop structive dwelling? .The question*pearod to be whether the new Attw intended to renew and continue Ik conditions established by the old Aft. Mr Skerrett contended that it hi incredible that the legislation w really intended to deprive this tpeoil. ised class of tenants of its protection, and that when the temporary le2i»liti« • in the Act of lfl"21 was passed, hsdthm'; been any such intention, euertioH: would have been asked in Parliament. ] As it was, there did .not apoear to In \ a single reference to it in '"flausri."' His Honour suggested that ton legislators miffht be discreet enough to ; raise no questions on certain tecnoinu matters. It certain looked as though when enacting their later pfotiiltos, the Legislature had overlooked or fat. ■ gotten all about tjieir previous easttments. . , Counsel for respondent ipoie, bnt» Honour interrupted with * remark m be understood that .counsel cla\nedij order of ejectment, which had M Granted by the Magistrate on W iround tot Bection 13 vvaa repeaW. Now, said his, Honour, cQ.ur*el w apparently arguing that Section W w applicable only to a £2 V*™j(& ling-house, but, his nonour held,, m present case dealt witlr •/•ft louse and shop. It con d nos b» hg to be a orotected dwelling-house, tj ered a "constructive d»«Wßk>»om His Honour:.ls it your ojaj that, this clace is a dwlhne-howe u| not a shop? . . it wL substantially a shoo and nj; adwellinjj-house, who would you «J Counsel: I don't U-w. have to leave it to your Honour. _ Grovel then proceeded to M that tie old law remained n fa* for the protection of sold-ers inrtprt onlv to 1 shops, not dwelling When MrWett rose hjsHg interrupted him. "Vou tUMP the Magistrate in talkmg *J J tion 13 having been reMed, to «« "Section 13 was not * Mr Skerrett said he auggestion that Section. porated in the new the whole three sections ual"u together. In that there was all the more tain that the Acts inJMJJ*, did differentiate between ants and soldier tenants. W special class. Decision was reserved.