LANDLORD AND TENANT

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 116, 24 August 1910, Page 7

LANDLORD AND TENANT

NECESSITY FOE WRITTEN CONTRACTS. '

in the S.M. Court yesterday morning, •Benjamin Enroth sued W. T. Coad for £6 Is, a claim for rent due, rent in lieu of notice, and for a latch damaged iby the defendant. iMr. Johnstone appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff stated that Mrs. Coad had rented one of his Rouses and he had arranged with her that a month's notice was required on either side ,to terminate the tenancy On April I,3th last defendant gave him notice that .he intended leaving at the end of the following week. 'He°left, despite the plaintiff's remonstrance, paying the rent up to 'April 23rd, and now the latter claimed for a week's rent and £4 in lieu of a month's notice. 'He contended that he was to receive a month's notice from the end of the month, though, in answer to cross-examining' counsel, .he said that this was not specified. In another case he hadn't pressed for a month's notice, for the man wasn't in the same financial circumstances as this defendant. The receipts showed that the rent was paid at the rate of a pound a week. The Coads were excellent tenants, and he was -an excellent landlord. He had gone to considerable expense to make the place more convenient for them. He remembered Mrs. Coad saying that her husband was a relieving postmaster, and that he was liable to be transferred on very short notice. He had' told Coad that "on the other side" he had adjudicated in numberless cases of -this kind, and there it was the law that this month's notice was required and 'he supposed the same law held here! The Magistrate explained that in the absence of any agreement on the lines stated iby plaintiff he could not succeed. 'Mr, Johnstone said he would call evidence to show that there was no such arrangement. Mrs. Enroth stated that in a conversation with 'her, Mrs. Coad had made it very plain that there need be no fear' "■that they would leave without the full notice being given, for in the event of i j Mr. Coad ibeing transferred she would I not go until he had got another home ready for her. Her 'husband was not present when this conversation took | place. . j The defence was that the house was taken on a weekly tenancy, and that the proper notice had been given. Mrs, Coatl said that when she arranged about the 'house she asked Mr. .Enroth if it would be convenient ior her to pay the rent monthly, as she paid her tradesmen's bills, and he agreed to it. She was very careful not to commit herself to a month's notice, for her husband was liable to transfer/and they had had experiences of house-renting ibefore. When Airs. Enroth complained to 'her of the conduct of another tenant in leaving without a month's notice she had been very careful not to commit herself to a monthly tenancy.. Asked if (he had any questions, the plaintiff said' it was difficult to aslc questions of a lady who swore pointblank against his own evidence. He asked the witness, ihowever, concerning Mrs. Enroth's version of the conversation between the two women, and she said that she would never think of making such a statement as had 'been attributed to (her. "If my husband were transferred 1 Should certainly go with Mm on the day he left. I shouldn't stay behind and face the shifting, by myself." The question of giving a month's notice had never . 'been mentioned to her iintil the neighboring tenants caused trouble by leaving on. short notice. .The defendant stated that at the time he took the house he was a relieving, postmaster, now he was chief mail clerk. He took the house from.week to week, and was not likely to arrange for a monthly tenancy, as he was liable to be transferred at a day's notice. All postal officials were "in the same box." When the first payment 'was made Mrs. Coad sent in a £5 note, and Enroth: took the whole of it, although only four weeks and a day were due. When he gave notice Enroth insisted that • a month's notice was due, and 1 he based his argument on his experience as a magistrate I."on the other side." The statement of i Mrs. Enroth that, Mrs. Coad had stated i it would be convenient for her to re- • main after her husband had ibeen trans- > ferred to a fresh appointment was "ab- • surd, simply imagination." No postal 1 officer would dream of going off and i leaving his wife to come on with the furi uiture and children. j iMr. Johnsitone contended that this was ■ a weekly tenancy. 'Even if it were, not, the plaintiff was entitled only to four weeks' rent from April 13th, not to his

t rent up to, the end of May as claimed, i Had Enroth had any chance of collecting i from those other tenants he would have i done it, for had he not put in a claim for > a'Shilling for a broken latch, as well as t for the six-weeks' rent'of premises that » defendant had not occupied ? Mr. Enroth, in replying, said that | Mrs. Coad's evidence had filled him . with astonishment, but what could a man say in such cirucmstances?' ' In giving judgment, Mrs. Fitzlierbert said it was very unpleasant to.have to ' tell a person he was not telling the truth, but in a case of this kind, Where ■there was direct conflict of evidence, 1 either someone was not telling'the truth, [ or had misunderstood the position. The weight of evidence was in favor of the I plaintiff, whose .evidence, had been cor- | roborated Iby Mrs. 'Enroth. Mrs. Coad's evidence as to the contract was not cor--1 ro'borated. The plaintiff would there--1 fore succeed, but Mr. Johnstone was right in his contention that the tenancy " was terminable by a month's notice at "any time. Judgment was give for £3 ■ lis, and 5s costs. I.