O. F. NELSON SUED.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 101, 1 May 1930, Page 8

O. F. NELSON SUED.

1 CLAIM BY LANDLADY. ! REMUERA RESIDENCE. ALLEGATION OF NEGLECT. . _ | INSPECTION BY MAGISTRATE. "It is really incredible that human beings could live in a p:ace and reduce, it to the state it is in at tin present time," said Mr. L. C. Adams, in the Magistrate's Court this morning, in advancing a claim for approximately £350 brought- by Josephine Wilson-Smith, widow, of Auckland, against Hon. O. F. Nelson, the ' well-known Saimoan merchant, in respect to damages alleged to have been caused to a residence in Remuera during the latter'? occupancy of it. During the hearing of the case, Mr-. W. R. McKean, S.M., said that he had inspected the plaintiff's property and it was in a shocking state. Plaintiff, iii her statement of claim, said that Nelson occupied her house in Mount Hobson Road, Remuera, from December, 1928, tp March 14, 1930, as a monthly te'nant. In addition to having the use of the house lie had the use of all the chattels, furniture, and personal effects. It was alleged that during his occupancy he wilfully or negligently damaged the house and appurtenances, and in this connection the sum of £27 5 was claimed to cover necessary repairs, replacements, etc. In addition, £50 general damages were sought, and £25 to cover loss occasioned the plaintiff through defendant failing to give sufficient notice of his intention to quit the premises and loss of rent during the time the home and furniture were under repair. Details of Alleged Damage. In a schedule enumerating items for which claims were made there were such items as £5 for "cleaning up litter from under house and yard and removing same"; 15/ for cleaning bath ("very dirty").; £3 14/ for repainting bathroom; £20 for.damage to bedding; £3 5/ for six silver cake forks and six silver tea spoons; £3 14/ for two dozen afternoon tea cups, saucers and plates; and £6 15/ for damage to a dinner service (which could not be matched) and crystal ware. Other claims were made in respect to polishing floors and restoring furniture and furnishings to good order. Originally, said Mr. Adams, the plaintiff rented her property to defendant -for > four weeks at a rental of £8 8/ weekly/ the figure being increased because the defendant was to have the use of napery, linen and cutlery placed in the house by request. From time to time the length of the- tenancy was increased, as the defendant was not prepared to take a lease owing to the possibility of his having to return to j Samoa. Mr. Hall Skelton, who oppeared for the defendant: My client wanted it to he taken. Rent Reduced to £6 6/. Mr. Adams said that in May last Mrs. Smith went to Australia, and she was ' harassed by cables from the defendant pressing for a reduction in the rentIt was reduced to £6 6/, and remained at that figure till Mr. Nelson vacated the premises. In January of this year,he (Mr. Adams), on behalf of >the plaintiff, entered into an arrangement with the defendant whereby the rent was to be payable in .advance, and the tenancy of the .house was_ to be terminated by one month's notice on either side. He confirmed the arrangement by letter and received no reply. The defendant, however, subsequently vacated the premises, giving a. fortnight's notice only. Extent of ttie Damage. Mr. Adams said it had. been difficult to arrive at an exact assessment of the damage and the amount necessary to restore the fittings to their original cqndition, but after much deliberation the sum of £275 had been arrived at, less £12. Evidence would be called to prove that when the defendant took possession of the property it was a •home belonging to a person with taste and of refinement. The furniture was not all new, hut none had been in the house for more than seven years. Curtains and coverings had been installed in recent months. Commenting on the state the house had been lc„ft in, counsel said that fortunately the plaintiff had ; i the Court to come "to for redress. It was really incredible that human beings could live in the place and reduce it to its present state. Mr. Skelton objected to the latter statement, calling on Mr. Adams to deal with specific questions and not play to the gallery. Illustrating how the property had been damaged, Mr. Adams said that t mattresses had b£en damaged, and sili verware had been placed under the i house. When recovered it was covered with verdigris. For evidence of vandalism it would be hard to find anything ■worse than that. "Political" Motive Denied. Mr. Skelton protested that the story that was being related and the one that would be told for the defence would [1 reveal that the matter was purely political, to damage his client. Mr. Adams denied that he was in any j way concerned with politics. [. Mr. McKean: I cannot see how polities enter into the matter.. I have seen the house. It was.in a shocking state the , day I saw it. The first witness for the plaintiff was Dr. C. Swanson, who said that prior to ! the defendant taking possession of Mrs. Smith's home, it was in perfect co.ndi- ' tion. When he saw it recently,, however, it was very filthy. He was impressed by the extent of the damage. Did Not Want to Leave. Details of the terms of the lease were j given by plaintiff who mentioned that Nelson had said to her that he was comfortable and happy in the place and did ' not want to leave as long as he was in » Auckland. On the day that witness went 5 out to the house with a prospective } tenant, a Mr. Alexander she had been : /terribly upset and had said to Mr. ! Alexander "I lhad no idea my place could fce in such a terrible condition. * Her home was in perfect condition \ «.pf o re Nelson went into it. It was dis- : covered after Nelson had left the place I that a gramophone had been thrown | under the house. A silver trav and a 5 tantalus which had been left in a cup--5 fco Sfa.r »« !it ™ » <«' 1 <=ho=terH o ld tod \ 1 shabby that it had to be reeen. .i There was no sccond-hand covered. jnto tlio ] 10llSPi except