CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

Waikato Times, Volume 121, Issue 20282, 26 August 1937, Page 10

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES

VERDICT OF THE JURY SMALL AMOUNT FOR TENANT COURT RESERVES JUDGMENT Addict for £75 damages In favour or the plaintiff was returned by the' J ur y> yesterday afternoon In the Supreme Court, Hamilton, in the case in which Mary Swarbrick, married woman of Huntly, tenant of the premises known as “Gle'nloth House” claimed £4OO general damages, for alleged trespass In disconnecting pipes, blocking chimneys and removing wash tubs, against Albert Edward Powell, owner of the premises. A verdict in favour of defendant was returned by tlie jury in respect to a further claim made by plaintiff for £2OO general damages for the trespass allegedly committed by defendant in removing certain windows from the house. Mr Justice Callan reserved his Judgment, and also extended until to-morrow week, the usual limit of four days in which any Intended application for a new trial must be moved. Mr N. S. Johnson appeared for plaintiff and defendant conducted his own case. Defendant said in evidence that he distinctly told plaintiff that she was to take tenancy of only four rooms of the house. Plaintiff had wanted the whole house, while a Mr Allen occupied two rooms. Defendant had offered plaintiff the whole house when Mr Alien left provided plaintiff paid 25s a week, to which she would not agree’. Defendant therefore re-let the two rooms to another tenant who later complained to defendant that she was troubled by ungracious actions of tne plaintiff. Why Windows Were Removed. Plaintiff said that he removed the window’s of one room because they had been warped during a neighbouring fire, and partly because he knew plaintiff had taken occupation of the rooms. Defendant stated that it had been necessary to slacken the washer of the tanks to run off a little water so as to repair them. He said that he had not tampered with the’ chimney nor had he authorised anyone to interfere with it. Ho suggested that the chimney was tampered with by the’ person who desired to rent the two rooms taken by plaintiff. Cross-examined defendant said that the windows were taken out two months ago and had not yet been replaced. Defendant said that he removed ihe tubs because plaintiff had refused to allow the other tenant the use of them. “Acta of a Bully.” “These acts have been the arrogant nets of a bully,” said Mr Johnson In addressing the jury, “and they have been aggravated by his hedging in the witness box,” he added asking the jury to regard defendant as an arrant humbug. His Honour said that the’ Jury would have to be certain that plaintiff rightly occupied the two extra rooms before any damages could be awarded. The second claim, he said, related to the alleged, damage done to the part of the house she was occupying. His Honour said that by law if no tenancy oontract had been entered into a month's notice to quit was’ necessary. The fact that rent was paid weekly did not. make the tenancy a weekly one. Plaintiff was certainly the tenant of at least four rooms of the house. He added that probably nothing like £6OO damages had been suffered. The jury then retired for about 20 minutes before delivering their verdict.