HAMPTON TEA v. THE CITY OF HELENA

[Xarkly 17299]

PETITIONS FOR SUMMONS

HAMPTON TEA V. THE CITY OF HELENA

 

 

Submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff by Christiansen-Wick Solicitors

---

 

The Plaintiff HAMPTON TEA,

Represented by KONSTANTIN WICK of CHRISTIANSEN-WICK SOLICITORS,

 

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

 

THE MAYOR OF HELENA,

on behalf of THE CITY OF HELENA,

---

 

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

 

• 303.021 - Ownership is the right to enjoyment and disposal of a thing, without limitation beyond the law;
• 303.023 - Nobody may be deprived of ownership by another.

-Oren Revised Code, CH303 ‘Property Ownership’

 

 

The Plaintiff, a company with legal personhood per Section 301.021 of the Oren Revised Code (hereafter the “ORC”) and entitled to the right of citizenship per ORC Section 301.023, submits to the Court that the Defendant did wrongfully evict them from their business premises at 2 Merchant Street.

 

The Plaintiff does not propose to claim that the Defendant, charged with maintenance of the city of Helena, should be without the right to evict properties when necessary. Rather, the Plaintiff submits the Court ought to find that such a right should only be exercisable in reasonable circumstances - namely, illegality, failure to pay taxes, etc. Likewise, the Plaintiff does not propose to disregard the Eminent Principle; however, it is of the utmost importance that the Court behold this Principle as a general guiding principle, to guide the Court where the ORC does not legislate, subject to the specific provisions of the ORC that are worded specifically to protect the rights of the Orenian man and woman, and common reasonableness. 

 

In this instance, the Defendant invoked the Edict of the City Clerk 1768 (hereafter the “Edict”) as justification for the eviction in tandem with the assertion that the Plaintiff’s wares would be more appropriately sold by way of stall rather than shop. The Court today, however, is asked to find that the Edict and the Defendant's consequent conduct are unlawful and constitute a violation of the ORC. The illegal provision in question is as follows:
 

• Edict of the City Clerk 1768, Section III - On Unused Shops on Merchant Street: “It is the opinion of the City Clerk that while the shops in Merchant Street may have shelves filled with goods, these shops should be put to use for companies with active store clerks.”

 

Not only does this Edict unreasonably interfere with the rights of property owners outlined in the ORC’s Lex Haraccene, but the Plaintiff was, at the time of their wrongful eviction, in compliance with this provision, which the Plaintiff has ample evidence of. Thus, not only were the Plaintiffs evicted on the grounds of an illegal provision, but they were evicted on the ground of an illegal provision that they were in compliance with. The Court is implored to recognise the supreme and binding nature of the ORC, which cannot be undermined by municipal edicts overruling it. While the newly-elected Josephite majority in the House of Commons intends to deliver a bill providing a much stronger legal framework for property rights and evictions, the Court is, at the present moment, bound by the objective wording of the ORC that can currently be applied for matters such as this. That objective wording provides and means:
 

• 303.022 - “Ownership is acquired through occupancy, by gift, testate and intestate succession, and as a result of contracts of tradition”: Under the ORC, the Plaintiff has met the criteria for ownership by way of occupancy and contract of tradition through sale.
• 303.021 - “Ownership is the right to enjoyment and disposal of a thing, without limitation beyond the law”: The outlined provision of the Edict constitutes an illegal intrusion to the Plaintiff’s right to their enjoyment of their lawfully-owned property.
• 303.023 - “Nobody may be deprived of ownership by another”: The outlined provision of the Edict constitutes a blatant and unlawful interference with this right. The Plaintiff acknowledges that this right should be subject to reasonable exceptions, such as illegality and failure to pay taxes, but that no such reasonable grounds can be found to exist in the present matrix of facts.

 

The Plaintiff respects the need for urban administration to conduct evictions, but submits that such evictions must be done in full compliance with existing and binding law in order to ensure that the rights of Orenians are respected. A municipal edict cannot be found to overrule the ORC, as doing so would establish a catastrophic precedent whereby local mandates can overrule the supreme legal codex of our Empire. In learning from this case, it is implored that the Defendant familiarise themselves with the ORC and operate within its parameters, and are assured that the newly-elected House of Commons shall be looking at legislating this matter in greater detail.

 

In consideration of this, the Court is urged to find that the Edict is unlawful and incompatible with the ORC. Not only that, but the illegal provision in question upon which the eviction was enacted was satisfied by the Plaintiff at the time of their eviction. In finding the Edict to be illegal, the Court must find the eviction itself to be illegal. The Plaintiff is a business that relies entirely on its shop premises to trade, through seating and liaising with customers, etc. Without their premises, the Plaintiff have been unable to go about their livelihood. Owing to the unlawful conduct of the Defendant, they have been unable to pay taxes and earn a living through no fault of their own.

 

Consequently, the Plaintiff is today seeking damages in the amount of 4,000 mina, calculated from the value of the lost property, loss of earnings and legal costs. 

 

Before proceeding with this case, the Plaintiff invites the Defendant to negotiate a potential settlement.

---

 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

 

Nadya Blackwater,

Milo Vitale.

 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

Pending discussions with the Defendant.

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

KONSTANTIN WICK on behalf of HAMPTON TEA,

CHRISTIANSEN-WICK SOLICITORS, 2 PETYR’S PASSAGE, NEW REZA.

[[Conor#8203]]

 

[Papa Liam 960]

One justice, Eugene “Eddy” Bracchus, claims the case, and the circuit accepts such. Both parties have five Saint’s Days to submit their evidence.

[Volous 24]

As per effort by the Ministry of Justice to archive old cases I hereby recapitulate that a settlement has been reached and the case has been closed. It is now scheduled to be archived within the saint’s week. Herein dated on the 12^th of Snow’s Maiden (Horen’s Calling), 1774. 

 

Maud Cassowary, Esq.
Crown Solicitor