Owner To Have Best Room In House, Says S.M.

Chronicle (Levin), 4 July 1949, Page 4

Owner To Have Best Room In House, Says S.M.

An • order that the owner of a house in Otaki be aliowed poSsSS-' sion of One room and the Use Of the- kitchen aiid conveniences, arid that she be a'.lowed to chdose the room in which she wished to reside, was liiade by Mr. A. A. McLadhlan, S.M., in the Magistfate's Court, Levin, bn'Frlday, after hearmg an appeal by the oWiier for possession from a tenant. Repiying- to a question by coun-. sel for defendaiit over a possible difnculty arisirig from the selection of the room, Mr, McLachiafl replied: "She is to have the best room in the house if she ple'ases." The case was one m which Litcy Geofgina Tristram sought possession of the house from Ifehe Ag-nes Stratford. The dweL-ing was said co be used by the iatter aka boardmg bouse. IftVited To Buy HoUSd. Appearing ior the plaintiff, Mr, f). J, Riddhord said that his client Was an eideriy woman living in an qid hoUse in an isoiated locality, The •hoUse had originaily belonged to ner, but she had sold it with ihe farm in 1942 and had used the money therefrom to purchase the house under dispute. She had continued iiving in the bouse, by arrangement with the new owner, whiie repairs were being made to th'e house she had p.urchased, iri Which she had had hopes of residmg in' peace in her old age. She had, let the d-efendant into this house, with the proviso that the tenancy was for six months only. Defehdant had refused to leave, despite repeated requests, and had nat only lived in the house herself but was making a substantial proflt_from the taking in of boarders, The hoUse had been rented to her at' the rate bf £1/5/- a week, and he would bring evidence to, shoW that defendant had been receiving £2 a'wdek each from five boarders. His client could no longer live in ;her present house, as the roof hpd i been taken off in a recent storm. If his ciient was aliowed possession, he would assure the court that the boarders- would be aliowed to stay on. This was substalltiated by plaintifl in her evidence. Asked by the magistrate if she would permit the present tenant to stay on in the house as well as the boarders if she gained possession, plaintiff replied that she would not, as there woul^, only be ttouble. -.CrQSs-examined by counsel for defendant, Mr. A. W. Yor.tt, plaintiff said1 that 12 months ago she had made an unsuccessful application to the court for possession. in replyto'a further question she ad-* mitted owning three otber houses, one in Brooklyn, one in Karori and TOtflfer ift BTf gak6'fs,-,Bay/ She 'said that her reason for not seeking possession orders for any of these was that there were young children living in them, and in one case the graffdpardrits as well. She did not like turning out young families. Haven For Old Age. The defehdant, irene Agnes Stratford-, denied that any arrangement had been made regarding the length of tenancy. She had even been asked by plaintiff if she would like to buy the property,. as piaimiff had been desirous of going to England as soon as the war was over. Plaintiff continued that she and her husband were separated. and that she was receiving

nothihg in maintenance from hirpHer only source of income was What she received from taking ih boarders. She had' nowhere else to go if she lost the house, although she had made attempts to secure a house through the State Adva'nces. She had a daughter who was as yet not of an age where she could support herself, and who did not enjoy the best health. The plaintiff's case rested on relative hardship, commented Mf. McLachlan, but the defendant's was the hardship of a totally, evicted tenant. It was an unusual case and the court had a big responsibility where it involved evietklg a woman and sick daughter, he addfed. Mr. Yortt: Mrs. Tristram has a roof over her head. The magistrate: Oh, no; it was taken off in the last storm, so she says, and I believe her. Continuing, Mr. McLachlan said that plaintiff regarded the house as the apple of her eye and haven for her old age, and it was strange indeed tbat strangers from Wellington could come in as boarders and stay there while she was unable to set foot in it. He felt that it was the duty of both parties to bottle up their pride and feelings against each other. He suggested that. both should get together and reach a mutual settlement during the luncheon adjournment. He thought tbat plaintiff should: be aliowed to stay in the house just as the boarders were. Apparently no settlement was reached, for after the adjournment the magistrate made a court order that plaintiff be given one room of her choosing, and that she be aliowed to take furniture sufflcient to furnish that room. If the parties could later have their mieals together it would be so much the better, he added, but he did not think it would- be safe to make an order to that effect. The rent being paid by defendant to plaintiff would be reduced from £1 5s to £1 in view of the fact that plaintiff would be living in the house, continued Mr. McLachlan, and the arrangement would have effect one month from the date of the hearing. He made no order in regard to costs.