TENANT AND PURCHASER

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 516, 23 March 1920, Page 2

TENANT AND PURCHASER

Seldom has a magistrate felt himself morally obliged to utter such strictures from the bench as weie delivered by Mr. P. K. Hunt, S.M., in giving his decision against the complainant in the action for alleged damages to furniture, concluded in the Pukekohe Court last Thursday. Obviously, his Worship was reluctantly obliged to give his decision in favour of the defendant, on a poinl of law only, and not on what he considered the just merits of the case. We heartily endorse his view that it is "a monstrous thing" that a landlord may enter the house of a tenant and take possession in the manner followed by the defendant, even though the latter was legally right in doing so. As the S.M. remarked, "it was fortunate indeed thai no breach of the peace occurred." Whether or not he owns the house he lives in. a self-respecting tenant nal urally considers his household goods inviolate, and the unceremonious removal of them is enough to incite the owner to the "white heat" stage of anger. The law, in a sense, really permits a landlord to "take the law into his own hands." the taking of possession in such cases should be carried out, not by the civilian, but by authoritative officials, and the law should be quickly amended accordingly. Had any personal violence been done to the landlord in the case cited, the provocation would have been so great that a nia-

gistrate would find the imposition of a severe penalty greatly against his conscience, whatever the law on the matter might be. After all, law in general, is based on human rights and equity, and where it is plainly proven that the law docs not rest ■Hi this basis an amendment is required. We can appreciate the magisl ate's hope that no further cases id' this kind will occur, but we think his hope is doomed to disappointucnt if the law is not amended in lhe direction indicated , and the Court resorted to under all such circumstances.