THE PROFITS OF A LANDLORD.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2216, 2 April 1881, Page 2

THE PROFITS OF A LANDLORD.

The following case was heard this morning before B. Westenra and J. B. Parker, Bsqrs., J.P.’s: Thomas Cooper v Mrs or Miss Wright, claim £6 5a for rent. This case had been adjourned from the day before, when plaintiff positively swore ha had seen defendant in the street on a given day. Defendant now produced a witness, who proved that defendant had been ill, and was not outside the house on the day named. Plaintiff was ordered to pay the expenses of the adjournment. The debt was then inquired into. It appears that plaintiff owns a house in Perth street, Bingsland, which has been, for a long time, let for the purposes of a brothel. Plaintiff deposed that defendant owed for two weeks’ occupation of the house at the rate of £2 per week, and he charged another £2 in lieu of a week’s notice, as she had kept the key three days after leaving the house. The odd 5s was not accounted for. Defendant swore that she really only owed for two weeks' rent. It might appear by the reoeipts that she owed more, but plaintiff juggled his accounts in such a manner that people not knowing his practices might believe she owed more. He had dunned her persistently for the rent, and if it became a little in arrear he used to add to his bills 15s or 16s a week at a time. She produced receipts for £42, which •he had regularly paid as the rent became due. The house was not worth more than 9s or 10s per week, but she had paid £2, and he turned her out because she would not pay more. The house was let over her head for £2 5s per week. She had caused some repairs to be effected, and plaintiff had agreed to allow her the cost of them—something over £2 She had not put in this account against plaintiff as a set off, because she knew nothing of the forms of the Court. Plaintiff, recalled, denied having let the house while defendant was in occupation, or that it was true that another “girl” went into it the very day be got the key. He had not made an agreement to allow anything for repairs. The Bench said that, according to the receipts before them, defendant owed the sum sued for, and judgment must be for plaintiff with costs. Defendant said she could not pay at once. Plaintiff—“ Your Worship, can I have immediate execution?” Magistrate—" You can proceed in forty-eight hours, and Mr Cooper, don’t you think you are inclined to be rather too hard ? This woman has paid you a large sum and regularly, and now you want to rigorously pursue her for a trifle. Do you not think you might make some arrangement with her to allow her time to pay, as she says she has not the money now?” Plaintiff—“ Your Worship, that is all a subterfuge. I want my money, and think I ought to get it.” Magistrate—“Yury well.” To defendant—“ Execution will be stayed for one week to allow you time to sue plaintiff for the cost of the repairs you caused to be done to the house. If you do not sue by that time you will then have to pay the present judgment, or execution will issue.” Plaintiff was proceeding to further address the Bench, when he was out short, and the Court adjourned.