MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 June 1921, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

% NEW PLYMOUTH CASES.. \ JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT. _ The usual flitting of the Magistrate’s Court at New Plymouth was held yesterday, Mr. C. R. Orr Walker presiding. Judgment for plaintiffs by default was given in the following cases:— Fitzherbert and bitzherbert v. Ron Broughton, £9 15s, coats £2 2s 6d; Arthur H. Boxworth v. Colin McLaren, £2 2s 6d, costs Bs. SALE OF WHISKY. The Public Trustee, as executor of the estate of the late James Hawkins, claimed from W. G. Emeny the sum of £123 18s 6d, the amount concerning a certain sale of -whisky by Hawkins to Emeny. The sum of £Bl 18s 6d had been paid into Court, and defendant claimed credit for £35, which it was alleged had been paid in cash to Hawkins. . Mr. H. R. Billing appeared for plaintiff, and Air. A. A. Bennett for defendant. Mr. Bennett said defendant admitted having received the whisky, but said he had paid for it. Hawkins and Emeny were elose friends, and had many transactions which were settled by an occasional squaring up between them personally, but no record was kept. Deceased met Mr. and Mrs. Emeny at their hotel on a Saturday night, and a settlement was made up then, when it was found that Emeny owed Hawkins £35 odd, after taking into account the whisky transaction. The money was paid in cash at Hawkins’ request, as he was leaving for Wellington the following day. Though iEmeny could not bring forward proof now, the cash payment made a complete settlement, as he was credited by Hawkins for various - personal accounts owing. As defendant could not recover these items he had paid the sum mentioned into Court. Evidence wae given by defendant, W. G. Emeny, and his wife, Pauline Emeny, as to the settling up between the parties. Mrs. Emeny said she was certain that the £35 was paid over. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs for the amount paid into Court, and as to the balance, eaid he would accept the statement for defendant as to cash payments made to Hawkins by Emeny. POSSESSION OF A HOUSE. The unusual feature of a sub-tenant suing for possession of a house was presented in the case in which Airs. Jane Cattley (Mr. R. H. Quilliam) sought to gain possession of a tenement from Mrs. Minnie R. Jones (Mr. A. A. Bennett). For plaintiff, Mr. Quilliam stated that Airs. Cattley and her husband took two furnished, rooms from Airs. Jones in October last, but owing to certain differences arising later, Airs. Jones gave them notice to quit. They proceeded to look for further accommodation, but were not successful, and decided to buy a property. In the course of further enquiries they heard that the house in which they were renting rooms was for sale, and they decided to buy. The sale had since been completed, and notice to quit had been given to Mrs. Jones, but was not obeyed. Airs. Cattley’s daughter intended to use the house as a nursing home, and all the rooms would be needed. Counsel also said there was the question whether defendant did not come within the amending Act of last session, by making an unreasonable protic out of sub-leting. She was renting the house at 17s 6d per week; two rooms were sublet to the Cattleys at 25s per week, and another one was also let at 10» per week. In eonnectioji with the case there also had been a suggestion that Airs. Jones said she was going to make Cattley pay very dear for this house. Evidence was given by plaintiff on the above lines. To Mr. Bennett: It would be an inconvenience to allow Mrs. Jones to remain in the house; it was also not a question of giving further time, as Mrs. Jones had said she was not going to go out, and she was making things unpleasant. Mrs. Cattley denied that her pets had the run of the hoqse. There were three Persian kittens and two Pomeranians, but they were only permitted at large in witness’ apartments. In submitting that the case was not one in which an order for possession should be made, Air. Bennett said plaintiff had not proved that the house was reasonably required for her own occupation. There was another question as to whether the refusal of the order would result in hardship to plaintiff, but, said counsel, Air. and Mrs. Cattley had already been’ occupying two rooms for the last nine months, and there was apparently no reason why this should not continue. On the other hand, if Mrs. Jones had to give up the house it would be an undue hardship, as she earned her means of livelihood in sub-letting rooms. Evidence was given by defendant, who said she had made attempts to find another place, but without success. She had the opportunity of securing a house in Devon Street, but it was an elevenroomed <1 welling, and the rent was £4 Ios per week, which she could not afford to pay. There was another in Powderham Street, for which £4 was being asked. She denied any knowledge of the allegation that she had said she would make the purchase a very expensive one for Cattley.

His Worship said the case.resolved itself into a question as to the balance of hardship. As the Circumstances were at present, there was no doubt the hardship would be upon the tenant if she was ordered to go out, and he did not feel inclined to make an order just now. It had also to be remembered that plaintiff bought the house knowing the full circumstances.

His Worship adjourned the case till August 25, and said in the meantime it would be expected that defendant would make the greatest efforts to get another house.