A QUESTION OF NOTICE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 140, 10 December 1929, Page 12

A QUESTION OF NOTICE

LANDLADY AND LODGER

CUSTOM AND THE LAW

Whether or not a ' boardinghoust keeper is entitled to notice of inte> tion to leave from a boarder forme the basis, of a claim made by Mat; Manning against George Bagnall ai J. Myers before Mr. C. E. Orr-Walkc, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court Iday. ,:

The facts as set out by Mr. JF. \ Clere, were that the plaintiff car rid on business as a boardinghouse-keejr at 46, Roxburgh street, and on Mondf, 23rd September, the defendants tck possession of a double room at fcr place. They stayed until the foll«v----ing Sunday night, when they told 'iia plaintiff that they were going to levo next day. This they did, and he plaintiff now claimed £1 15s fom each of the defendants in lieu o a week's notice.

Mr. Sievwright, for the defendate, applied for a uou-suit as he conteiflel that the defendants had no cas« t> answer. Counsel said that a pe:sov who kept boarders and lodgers was noi in any different position from an inn keeper. That was clear law, and n; notice was required. Counsel quote; authorities to show that there must b a definite contract to give notice, an< if there was no contract there was n'l necessity to give notice. His client were in the same position as guests s an inn, and as guests they were entit> ed to leave at any time. Mr. E. Pag> S.M., had given a decision in 192 5 holding that, unless there was a definite contract, no notice could be claimd by a lodginghouse-keeper, and counsl submitted that the present case ws on all fours with the ease in whih the decision had been given. Thca were no more modern cases on tia point, he said, because, apparently, be question was looked upon as settfed law.

In reply Mr. Clere said that he agreed with counsel for the defendants that there waa not a lease, and he held- that the defendants had a licence not a lease, but that did not absolve them from giving notice. As landlady had to prepare rooms for guests, and it was not reasonable for boarders to leave without giving some sort of notice. A lodginghouse-keep-er was not in the same position as aa innkeeper, because the latter (in the case of a licensed house) was bound to give, if he had room, board and lodging to anyone who demanded it. Counsel held that the authorities made it clear that notice of the revocatioa of the licence must be given. He was sure that if the defendants had been placed iv the position of being told to leave the following day, they would have objected, and contended that they should have been given reasonable notice to look around and find other lodgings.

| Mr. Sievwright: "They might have objected, but they would have had no legal standing." In giving his decision, the Magistrate said that he hardly thought that the cases quoted by Mr. Clere were on. all fours with the present case, "t know of no custom," Mr. Orr-'Walkci-continued, "that a boarder is bound to give a week's notice before he leaves. No doubt it is usual for a boarder to say to his landlady that he will be going in a week or a month, or something like that, but that does not make a custom enforceable by law. It is no doubt, usual for a boardinghousekeeper when she takes a boarder in, to say that a week's notice will be required, but there is no evidence in this case of any contract. On the eri* dence I must non-suit the plaiatift.-1'