OCCUPATION OF TENEMENTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 27 July 1920, Page 7

OCCUPATION OF TENEMENTS.

CLAIMS IN COURT. At the weekly civil sitting of the New Plymouth Court yesterday, claims for possession of tenements again figured in the list of cases set down for hawing. NO ORDER MADE. On the grounds that'he required the property for his own occupation, F. W. H. Maindonald (Mr. Billing) claimed from C. C. Lake (Mr. Weston) possesssion of a dwelling of five rooms, situate in Moleswartb. Street, and rent to date r ,£7 7s. Mr. Wilson said the Tent had been merely deferred pending the case, and it was not disputed. Plaintiff said he was a married man with a wife and one child, fund was caretaker for the Ngamotu Seaside Resorts Company. He was at present living in an unlined building, a beach cottage, and it was not very comfortable. The baby had contracted illness through the draughty nature of the building. He had given up his trade as ia baker owing to ill-health, and had now bought a farm at Tataraimaka, but there were no buildings on the farm. He would want the house in town, as he was giving up the position of caretaker, and was ultimately going on to the farm.

In the course of cross-examination it was elicited that the house had been in the hands of agents. Plaintiff admitted that when he gave the month's notice he intended selling the house. Previously Lake had been in the cottage, and witness was in his own 'house, and they exchanged. He did not admit that an agreement was arrived at verbally by which Lake was to have the house for the winter.

The defandant, C. C. Lake, said he was the tenant of the property oh the beach till about the end of November, when he received notice that the building would be required for the use of the. caretaker, being the beat along that part of the beach. Maindonald was an applicant for the position, and eventually witness took Maindonald's house in Molesworth Street, paying 25s per week, and the latter went into the cottage. The understanding was that he was to have the house till September. Since receiving notice, however, he had made every endeavor to get accommodation, but was unsuccessful.

To Mr. Billing: He did not 'think it lyould be possible to share the house. His Worship decided not to make an order, stating he was not satisfied that plaintiff required the property for his own use. NEW BUILDING NOT COMPLETED. . A Lemon Street dwelling was the subject of dispute in the ease of P. C. Sorenson (Mr. Billing) v. A. L. Roberts (Mr. Bennett). Mr. Billing said that an option to purchase the property had been given by Mr. Sorenson to a returned soldier, M. J. O'Donnell. The latter's application had been passed by the Land Board, and everything was ready for the completion of the agreement. M. J. O'Donnell, giving evidence in support, stated there were several of his relatives, including his mother and sister, living in different places awaiting an opportunity to get into the house. His twelve-year-old sister was living away from her, mother, as there was no room where the lattqr was staying. They previously had a house, but it was sold over their heads, and they vacated it. His Worship remarked that witness should not have gone out of the house; being a returned soldier he would have been safe from ejection. I O'Donnell said on that occasion they did not want to make trouble, and after getting a mouth's extra time the family left the house. His application had been in early in the year, and everything was ready to go in when Boberts left, in I the meantime the family being in various temporary quarters. ' Paul C. Sorenson, plaintiff, said he bought the property about twelve i months ago, and Roberts was the occur | pier then. The sale to O'Donnell was now being held up awaiting O'Donnell's leaving. The defendant, Arthur-L. Roberts, said he had been in the house two years. Sorenson bought the property in 1919, and notified that he wanted increased rent. Witness paid an increase of 2s 6d, Sorenson Btating that he could stay for a year. In the meantime he had endeavored to get a building erected on his section, but could not get the materials; framing materials had not yet come to hand, but wheh it arrived the work would be gone on with. In the meantime he had tried to secure a house through various channels. He advertised fdr a week, offering a bonus of £5, but got no reply. In the only case where he had a chance of getting rooms the children were a bar. Witness estimated that it would be three months before the hftuse was built. He had a wife and two children. Mrs. Roberts and the boy aged seven were not in good health. In reply to Mr. Billing, he. said he owned a house three years ago, and sold it.

His Worship said that apaa-t from the question of hardship it appeared to be a case where an order should he madp. There were other circumstances, and the case would be adjourned till 27th September, 'to allow of Mr. Roberts' house being completed. POSSESSION IN THREE MONTHS. The cage of Shaw v. Riley, adjourned by the Court last Monday with a view to the defendant-and Francis (the purchaser) coming to an agreement over sharing the house, was again called on. Evidence was given by Edward L. Humphries, land and estate agent, who said he accompanied Mr. and Mrs. Francis to Riley's house, but Mr, and Mrs. Riley stated they had decided to keep the whole house and refused to discuss the matter of sharing. His Worship decided that an order be made for possession to be given in three months' time, 26th October.