MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 April 1920, Page 2

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

YESTERDAY'S SITTING. In the New Plymouth Magistrate's Court yesterday Mr. T. A. B. Bailey, S.M., gave judgment by default in the case of Snelling and Andrews (Mr. T. P. Anderson) v. the British Petroleum Coy., Ltd., and Percy A. Hadley (Mr. C. H. Croker) on a claim for £49 13s and costs £3 tlOs Gd. In the judgment summons case of Fredk. Ward (Mr. A. A. Bennett) v. P.ahui Mace the debtor was ordered to pay the sum of £4 ICs forthwith, in default five days' imprisonment. On the application of Messrs. Roy and Nicholson (for whom Mr. Bennett appeared) an order was made against Howard E- Russ for possession of a dwelling and judgment was given for arrears of rent amounting to £0 18s, the same to be paid on or before April 29. PECULIAR TENANCY CASE. A case of unusual interest in connection with a tenement matter was heard yesterday- The position arose through a woman in possession of a house having sub-let a portion of it to another woman who used it for the purposes of a nursing home. A returned soldier entered into an agreement to purchase the place about November last, and made application for a grant for that purpose. As the place needed some repairs the grant was not authorised until these could be effected. The purchaser, who was a builder, intended making the repairs himself, but coyld not get possession of the place. He also intended erecting a joinery workshop on the section, and had received a grant through the Repatriation Board for the purchase of machinery. This was now lying idle on account of the man not being able to get into the place he had bought. Mr, T. P. Anderson, who appeared for plaintiff in the case, said the hardship on his client was very real, and moreover the financial loss would he difficult to estimate as he understood there was no more money available for grants from the Government such as plaintiff had applied for. In reply to the Magistrate the tenant said she had done her best to get another place and had also given her subtenant notice to vacate the rooms. The sub-tenant appeared to be the principal difficulty in the case, as had part of the house been available, plaintiff, who had a wife and one child, might have got into his house and have sub-let a portion to the present tenant. The Magistrate adjourned the matter for three weeks, and gave the defendant to understand that unless the sub-tenant was out of the rooms then an order would be made and that would mean that both parties would be ejected.