WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 668, 7 June 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Monday, June 6th. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) ILLEGAL [OCCUPATION. Sullivan v. Temperley : The plaint was that, defendant was in illegal occupation of section No 55, situate in Lyttelton-st, Westport, and of a cottage erected thereon, the property of complainant. Mr Pitt appeared for the complainant. The latter stated that on the 6th of May, defendant came to her and asked her whether she did not occupy two sections. She answered that she did, and informed him upon inquiry, that she only held one business license. She claimed the section and cottage now in dispute under her business license and had informed Temperley that she 1 claimed the section. He replied that he wanted a section, and would take that one. On the lGth defendant put her things out, and had since deprived her of the use of the cottage. By defendant: I remember May 6th. I told you I had not two licenses. I held a tape for you while you measured the gronnd ; you said I held more than I was entitled to. It was three or four days after measuring the ground that you entered the house. I held a business license for section 55. I did not have a business license previous to March. By Warden: The business license taken outin March was for the. cottage. . The second license was taken out for the section on which the wash-house stands. The ground that defendant took up was the section on which the cottage stands. I don't know who put the building on the ground. Defendant said he was informed that section 55 was vacant. He went to complainant and asked if she had two business licenses. She replied she had but one. She showed him her pegs and witness asked her which section she claimed. She claimed the section on which the wash-house was built. Witness then gave her notice that the house must be moved off section 55. He taped the section on May 6th and took possession of the house May 16th. Complainant made no objection to his taking the house. By Counsel: I told her if she did not remove her things I should store them at her risk and expense. Mr Pitt contended that the complainant's case was entirely unanswered. It had been shown that at the time defendant claimed section 55 complainant held a business license, dated March 23rd, and she had positively affirmed that the license was applied by her to section No. 55 and no other.

The Warden decided that the weight of evidence was in favor of the defendant, and his possession would be therefore confirmed.