MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 December 1920, Page 6

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

CIVIL SITTING. Mr. T. A. B. Baily, S.M., presided over a silling of the Magistrate's Court at New Plymouth yesterday. JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Judgments for plaintiff by default were given as, follows:—A. R. Davis (Mr. A, Bennett) v. J. J. Mtidford, £9 (costs £1 10s 6d); executor* of the late Henry Weston (Mr. C. H. Weston) v. I<\ Washbourne, £2l 10s 3d (costs £3 Is); same v. T. Willing, £1 Is (costs lis); Thomas Avery (Mr. Lawrey) v. W. T. Duflin, £2 is 6d (costs £1 3s Cd); Mrs. L. M. Matthews (Mr. Bennett) v. David Henderson, £9 10s (costs £1 13s Cd). CLAIM FOR POSSESSION.

C. T. Rundle (Mr. C. H. Weston) sought to recover from James Rielly (Mr. P. B. FiUherbert) possession of a tenement.

Counsel stated that plaintiff owned two house properties in New Plymouth, one of which he occupied himself and the other was rented to defendant. The one plaintiff resided in had been sold, and as the purchaser was under notice to quit the securing of possesion was urgent. To enable him to go into a house Rundle desired to shift into the one occupied by Rielly. Mr. Weston also contended that any defence open to the defendant in the ordinary course had lapsed as the Housing Act had not been extended. There was some discussion between counsel for both parties and the Bench as to •whether the. housing regulations were still in force, but after various references to the -numerous Acts and Amendments concerning tenants and landlords, nothing definite could be ascertained.

Plaintiff stated that ho had negotiated in the direction of selling the house on a previous oecason, but the deal lapsed as the ReHlya would not go out. They really had had a year and nine months to find another house. Under cross examination, he stated that the house would be occupied only by himself, wife and daughter. There was a clause in the agreement for sale and purchase stipulating that if vacant possession was not given by January 31. 1021, either party would have the option of cancelling without incurring obligations for damages.

The case for defendant was that Mr. and Mra. Rielly had a family of live young children, and that Mrs. Rielly's aged father and a brother also lived in the house. It was impossible to get another residence.

A suggestion made that the parties should shave the house, which was a nine-roomed one, was discussed but no arrangement was come to. His Worship said he did not feel disposed to make an order. < It was hardly possible for defendant to "get a hotiso as landlords would not let to a person with four or five children, as they knew they could not get him out. He would adjourn the case till nevt Monday to see what arrangement the parties could make. He remarked that, if as counsel stated, the housing regulations had expired, he would have no option but to make an order.