ALLEGED TRESPASS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 3189, 7 April 1911, Page 2

ALLEGED TRESPASS.

MAGISTRATE'S COURT PROCEEDINGS. JUDGMENT FC'R DEFENDANT. Elizabeth„ ~Richardson, ,(in- elderly woman, brought an action against Edward Pat-tricks Joyce, before Mr IV. A. Barton, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday for £SO for alleged trespass. Mr Burnard appeared for plaintiff, and Mr H. J. Finn for defendant. The plaintiff said- that she knew the defendant. Prior to September 15th she and her son had resided in one of his houses. She paid' the rent when her son gave her the money. About a week before September 15tli she left defendant’s house and took another from Mr T. G. Lawless. On September 15bh t-Jie defendant visited her house, walked right into the house, and pushed open her bedroom door and stood there. Fie said' witness was a liar because she did not go to his place on the previous Saturday to.' pay him the rent. Witness wanted to know how she could go when she was ill. She said she would not be in bed if she-was not sick. Defendant said, “You’re a liar.” Ho then informed her he would have her son brought back from Auckland at bis own expense in order to get the rent. The defendant’s conduct made her worse, and she was in bed a week and a half longer than she otherwise would have been. Her husband and her two daughters, were in the house at- the time. She was afraid that if she instituted proceedings he would carry out his threat to bring back her son. She received a- .‘iimmons for rent from plaintiff some time afterwards and she later saw her solicitor about instituting these proceedings. She had paid the rent. To Mr Finn: She was a weekly tenant. Rent amounting to £lO 16s was due when shq left the house, and she removed the furniture without having given notice. After she had removed the first cartload her husband 1 told her she had better go to the house, as Joyce was “kicking up a row.” She then went straight to the house and he complained that witness had not given him notice. She subsequently agreed to pay him the rent when she got it from her son. It was during her illness that defendant walked into her room. She had a jacket on, and was in bed. She did not hear her daughter invite defendant to enter. Mr Lawless had been told by witness that she was going to sue defenedant for trespass. Mr Lawless was not bearing the expenses of this action. Nellie Richardson, daughter of the plaintiff said that she knew the defendant. He visited their house about four months ago. Witness was cleaning the piano, and defendant pulled back the curtains and walked in. He asked witness where her brother was. and she said up the coast. He said, “You’re a liar. He is not.” Witness told him whom her brother was working for, and he said she was a liar. He asked her where her mother was. and she said she was ill in bed, and he replied that she was a liar. The defendant- then pushed her mouther’s door open with a walking stick and walked in. He said to plaintiff he was going to have her son brought back. She did not invite defendant into the house.

Edward Pattrieks Joyce, defendant, gave evidence that plaintiff left- the house on September 7th without notice. He (witness) went 'over about a quarter to seven, and most of the furniture had been removed. , He asked for plaintiff, Ibid the latter’s husband went and brought her from the other house. He complained that she was leaving the house without notice. Plaintiff explained that she had obtained a more convenient house, and would pay the rent when her son came down'from the coast at Christmas. He waited till after Christmas' (January 9), and -hearing that plaintiff’s son was back he went over to the house between 10 and 11 a.m.' Plaintiff’s daughter came to the door, and he asked for plaintiff, and she replied: “Yes; come in.” He went in, and asked for plaintiff, and was told she was lying down. He asked if he could sge her, and was told that lie could and to come in. The bedroom door was partly open and lie saw plaintiff partly sitting and partly lying on the bed. She was fully dressed, and bad her boots on. He did' not move from the centre of the sitting room and did nor. go, into the bedroom at all. He told plaintiff he had come as he had been asked to collect the rent. Plaintiff told him to look for -her son for that, and he then went away. He was about two minutes there, not 20, as plaintiff bad stated. Subsequently he met plaintiff on the footpath and gave her the account fc<r the rent-. He was never in plaintiff’s house until January 9th, and then only once. He did not push the door open and was never nearer than five to six feet- from the bedroom door. He never made use of the term “liar” to either plaintff or her daughter—it was a concoction. Subsequent!' to January 9bh he instructed his solicitor to proceed against plaintiff for rent, £lO 10s.

After hearing further evidence. Ins Worship commented upon the conflict of evidence, and gave judgment for the defendant with costs amounting to £2 10s.