PALMERSTON SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XL, Issue 1865, 17 August 1918, Page 3

PALMERSTON SUPREME COURT.

A FOXTON CASE. DAMAGES FOR TRESPASS. At the Supreme Court, Palmerston North, on Thursday, George T. Caddy (Mr H. G. Moore) proceeded against W. E. Kiddle (Mr Cooper) to recover the sum of £75 damages for alleged trespass. Defendant had paid the sum of £5 8s Od into Coux’t. Mr Moore, in opening the case for the plaintiff, said that this was a claim for damages for the invasion of plaintiff’s rights as a tenant. Mr and Mrs Caddy had been living in a< house of defendant’s at Foxton, and the rent was to be paid fortnightly. When a fortnight’s rent was owing Caddy came away to Palmerston, but before doing so asked Riddle if the rent could stand over till the end of the month, and Riddle said “All right.” Mr and Mrs Caddy came away, and at the end of a fortnight plaintiff wrote to Riddle and gave a week’s notice, ami stated that Mrs Caddy would bring the rent to Foxton. Mrs Caddy, when she got to Foxton a week later, found another person in the house and her furniture gone. She found afterwards that Mr Riddle had carted the furniture away and let the house to somebody else. G. T. Caddy, the plaintiff, deposed that lie bad been renting a cottage from Mr Riddle at Foxton for 11s per week, ami was paying fortnightly. In March he decided to come to Palmerston, and as there was then a, fortnight’s rent owing, he asked Riddle if he would let the rent go until the end of four weeks. To this Riddle agreed. At the end of the time when the four weeks’ rent was owing, plaintiff wrote to Riddle, and ami at the end of another week Mrs Caddy went; to Foxton, taking the rent with her. When his wife came back and told him what had happened, he wrote to Riddle, and subsequently put the matter into Unhands of his solicitors. To Mr Cooper: He got his furniture hack from Foxton after a lot of trouble, and the furniture was in good order. Ho was away from the house when the furniture was taken away. Mrs Caddy, wife of the plaintiff, deposed that she went to Foxton to pay the five weeks’ rent, and she found somebody else in the house and her furniture gone. She wont 'and saw Mr Riddle and paid four weeks’ rent, and asked him why he took away the furniture. He said he had done it for the best, and hoped Mr Caddy would not take it in a had spirit. She wanted the furniture brought back that day, and eventually she bad to pay a carrier I2s fid to bring it back into Foxton. Cross-examined by Mr Cooper: Riddle packed up her furniture, labelled it, and handed it over to the carrier. The facts not being disputed, Mr Cooper did not call any evidence, but contended that little damage, if any, had been sustained by plaintiff. His Honour said it seemed that the landlord tool; the furniture away so as to get possession of the house. ■Defendant should have seen that the tenants were only away for a few days over the period asked for. There Was no d ud)! there had been n trespass, but it was not a very serious one. Judgment would bo given for plaintiff for £lO (including the amount paid into Court), with costs on the Magistrate’s Court scale.