The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1920-02-19
COURT DEF|ED
BY 4 TENANTS
Tie Up Investment of Nearly
Third Of Million Dollars,
Rent Case Reveals.


That the Washington tenant is not
as down-trodden a person as he gen
orally is believed to be. and tina: he
can WELD considerable power IL he
cares to take matters into his own
hands. was shown today in COM
plant filed with the District Rent
Commission in which four tenants
have defied the court. have igneied
an order from trustees. and have tied
up an investment of nearly Thru
Of q million dollars.
The complaint is that of Joseph
Ferrero against Mike Athan, Peter
Wells. Joseph Venexiana and Lewis
Harris. The property involved Is Nos.
TIT A. 1904 and 72l Fourteenth
street
Mr.. Ferrero declares that he pur-
chased at a court sale the property
In question for $23S.110 on June %.
1919. He states that he paid for II
in cash and that because Of the re-
, fusal of the tenants to move, he Is
! losing daily the interest on the large
amount of money he has invested
with the exception of the rental he
receives.
Requests Ignored.
He sets forth that the trustees
notice to quit the property within a
certain period was ignored by the
tenants, that they have refused his
requests to move out, and that he
has never rented it to the defendants.
they being tenants under an agree
ment OF tho former landlord.
I The properties in question arc
smLn frame structures, and Mr.. Fer
rero states that he purchased them
to erect a modern structure. he bui d.
ing of which has been delayed by the
tenants refusal to move.
He states that Athan and Wells are
renting INA Fourteenth street for
| 81. 40 annually. Veneziana Is in pos
session Of 719h for a rental of $50
per month, and Harris occupies 721,
for which he pays 81, 500 per year. 1t
is declared. The four defendants
have fruit, cigar, and newsstands.
| The Rent Commission is asked for
an order giving Ferrero possession
of the properties in order that he
, can tear them down preparatory to
| building.
Trial Reom Crowded.
The trial room of the District Rent
Commission was crowded yesterday
afternoon for the hearing of the first
landlord and tenant case. Not only
were numerous witnesses and friends
or more of attorneys and real estate
men who are anxious to learn the
procedure OF the commission.
The case heard involved the issue
of possession. The parties were Ohio
l.. Newman and wife and Joel Frank
Thompson. Both were compliments
and defendants, cross-complaints hav-
ing been filed. The property at issue
was 6l3 Kiefer place northwest
- A A.
same parties is pending in the Munic-
| ipal Court, so that the case before tho
commission was instituted to test
whether issues of possession shall be
disposed of by the commission or the
court, numerous complaints having
been filed before both tribunals.
The evidence heard yesterday dealt
with efforts to prove whether Mr..
| and Mrs. Newman were bona f,de
owners; whether or not the properly
was purchased for their own occup-
ancy: whether sufficient notice hal
been given to vacate, and whether
this notice was given before or at
ter title to the property had changed
| hands.
Mr.. and Mrs. Newman attempted to
show that they became the owners
of the property in question while Mr..
Thompson was q tenant. They de.
clared that they bought the property
for their own use, that they never
consented to its rental to Mr.. Thomp-
son. and that they never accepted
any rent from him.
Still Paying Rental.
On the other hand Mr.. Thompson
declared that the Newmans did not
want the property and had offered II
for sale. He took the position that
he was entitled to occupancy since
he was still paying yental to the
real estate firm OF Shannon & Luchs
as agents, as he did before the New
mans became the owners.
Mr.. and Mrs. Newman were repre-
sented by Attorney S. Herbert Giesy,
and Mr.. Thompson was represented
by Attorney Chaplin B. Bauman. r.
w. Beall and Elton +. Young. al
pearing as witnesses, gave testimony
for both sides.
Capt. James +. Oyster, A. Leftwich
! Sinclair and Guy Mason. the full
commission, sat. Chairman Oyster
announced that the session today
would be executive. Consideration OF
the case heard yesterday will be
taken up and decision probably Will
be made public within several days.
The next hearing of the commission
probably will be held Saturday or
Monday, and when the commission
is more permanently established, a
regular schedule of hearings will be