IN DEFENCE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXI, Issue 102, 2 May 1930, Page 9

IN DEFENCE.

0. F. NELSON CASE. LANDLADYS , CLAIM. WAS FURNITURE OLD ? SUGGESTIONS BY COUNSEL. Suggestions that a virulent attack had been launched against his client and attempts .were being made to load him with the entire depreciation of old furniture, were made by Mr. Hall Skelton in the Magistrate's Court this afternoon, in opening the case for the defence in the action brought by Mrs. Josephine Alice Wilson-Smith against the Hon. O. F. Nelson; Samoan merchant. Plaintiff claimed £300 in respect to damages alleged to have been caused to a Renmera home during Nelson's occupancy of it from December, 1925, to March 14 last. When the case was resumed this morning, Mr. Hall Skelton, for the. defendant, said he was going to suggest that the plaintiff herself waa responsible for the disarrangement of the house and the scattered straw found in it. The defence would contend that the property had been upset between the time Nelson vacated it and the visit ]>y the magistrate five weeks later. Counsel asked leave to take, witnesses to the house to shew that it was not dirty when Nelson left. Mr, W. R. McKean, S.M., raised no objection to the proposal, providing Mr. Hall Skelton thought an inspection would assist in the case. Evidence for Plaintiff. Much evidence was heard in support of the claims. A son-in-law of plaintiff, Owen Breinner, of Hamilton, said that prior to the defendant taking possession of the house it was in perfect condition. It was in a deplorable state after Nelson had left it. The carpets gave the impression that they had been left out in the raiivand he would nr,t have relished the job of cleaning up the entire house. .Stephen Hannnn, furniture manufacturer and interior decorator, said he set out the schedule on which the statement of claim was based. Crossexamined, witness said lie had no figures in his possession to show how the assessments wen; arrived, at, although he had them Hi home.

Giving evidence relative to the issue of an insurance policy, Robert Laery, insurance inspector, described the Smith home as be.iirr beautifully furnished. James Joseph Cotter, <x jieighbour, who was acquainted with the interior of the house, said that everything seemed much the same when he was a guest of Nelson. Wallace D'Audney, repairer and manufacturer of furniture, vouched for the accuracy of the assessed damages listed in the schedule attached to the •statement of claim.-v ;• • , ■ "My friend is trying an ingenious way to get a new set of furniture on a method that will not bear analysis," said Mr. Skelton in attacking the evidence given by expert witnesses for the defence. "The present witness has satisfied me as to the basis of his figures," observed Mr. McKean. "Pure Guesswork." Mr. Skelton continued to crossexamine the witness D'Audney relative to how he arrived at estimates of damage allegad to have been done to various articles of furniture. "You say the place was like a pig sty," he remarked. Mr. Adams (counsel for plainff): He did not say that! Mr. Skelton: You don't know the sort of treatment the furniture had or tlio value of it before Nelson took possession. It is only pure guesswork. Witness: Not at all. Mr. Skelton: Why should the defendant be called upon to renovate the whole house when he has only occupied it for 15 months? I Mr. Adams: That is a, matter for tne Court to arrive at, not the witness. % "Any place locked up for a week or so smells horrid," eaid Mr. Skelton, in cross-examining the next witness, James William Clampitt. "Even churches smell if they have been left closed for some time." "I have been round many Remuera homes, and I have never seen a place in such a state," replied witness. Mr Skelton: We had those general statements yesterday. Can you state specifically on what grounds you make that general accusation? "Peculiar Smells." Witness: There was a peculiar smell about the house when I went in. It was not the same in other houses. Mr. Skelton: I suppose you suggest that Samoans smell differently from Europeans? . * , Mr. McKean: You are bringing that oU ßeferring to articles that he had noticed were damaged, witness said a bedstead was broken, and it had been mended by a piece of board. Mr. McKean: That is something I nave not had Before. A Holmes, cabinetmaker, said lie visited the Smith home both before and after Nelson's tenancy. It was perfect when the plaintiff occupied it but in a deplorable state later on. Certain furniture was broken and scratched, while some of the papering was torn. Personally he would not care to use the bath in its present state. Mr Skelton: No one else would. It had been left for two or three months. Apart from the interior, after Nelson s tenancy of the house, explained witness, there was a largo number of shells and coconut husks in the back yard. Clouaing of Issue. ' "As I suggested when the case for the plaintiff was being stated, in this case there has been an attempt to drag in other matters to cloud the real issue before the Court," declared Mr. Skelton in opening the case for the defence. "There had been an attempt, he added, "to show that his client and his family were very unclean people, the inference being that they were Samoans and did not know how to look after a European house. The language used by Mr. Adams in his address was quite inconsistent with the evidence adduced." Mr. McKean: I don't know that.that 19 Mr Skelton: He says it is incredible that human beings could live under such conditions, and that the defendant was guilty of arrant vandalism. It is because my client is a Samoan that these suggestions are made. g Mr McKean: I don't think so. I was asked to inspect this house, anl I was Sown the condition of things. The

conclusion I came to was that they were deplorable. I certainly would not have occupied the- house myself. Matter Vital to Defendant. Mr. Skelton: You went there five weeks after the defendant vacated the place. Counsel pointed out that before Nelson left Mrs. Smith saw the house and did not complain of deplorable conditions, but merely of the disappearance of some cups. The main point of attack was on the personal standing of the defendant and his family. The matter was vital to their well-being, as the defendant had stayed in various parts of the world and had never had a complaint like the present one before. Visitors to his home in Samoa would say that it compared with any in New Zealand, and contained furniture worth thousands of pounds. His daughters were educated at the best of schools in Australasia. . . Mr. McKean: What has that to do with this case ? ': . ' Mr Skelton: It has everything to do with it, as a virulent attack was made on my client. Mr. Adams made a personal attack on my client and. I must reply to that. If statements like those that have been' made are allowed to go unchallenged they will ru,n he defendant if he should require another house Auckland. We will establish, howover, that the plaintiff's home was pulled about after the- defendant Awhile 'witnesses had talked in generalities of the filthiness of the house sxid Mr. Skelton. their evidence was ot an inferior type, because they con d not state specifically where damage had been °Mr. McKean: Do you say the furniture was not the same as when the defendant vacated the place? ■Mr Skelton:. We say it was practically the same as when the defendant went, in. . ~,,-,,„ Mr. McKean: I am surprised that He took it, then! "Reputation for Cleanliness." Mr Skelton said that Nelson had a reputation for cleanliness. He was-spot-less in his attire and in the keeping ot his'homo. Evidence in substantiation of that fact would ho given by reputable citizens. On the other hand, it would be (Shown that Mrs. Smith did not complain of the conditions on the day the- defendant was preparing to leave her place. The furniture in the housa was very plain, and the defence would complain' that the washhouse was also a storeroom and the bathroom was in a shocking condition.- The gramophone, which it was alleged had been thrown out, was rusty and worthless, and had not been used for years. The tantalus was broken when the defendant took occupancy of the place. "Mystifying the Court." To cloud over the real issue, said Mr. Skelton, reference was made to the necessity for fumigation after the Nelsons had left the house. It also seemed to counsel that an ingenious attempt, had been made to mystify the Court with the valuations of damage caused to the furniture and Effect. The plaintiff had also'tried to load the whole depreciation of the furniture from the time it was purchased on to Nelson as the result of his 15 months' occupancy of the home. It had suffered the wear and tear of two families, but that fact was not taken into consideration by witnesses in assessing the damages. No inventory was taken, although the defendant had desired it. The original -value,.of the furniture was £460, and to-day: it was assessed at £295. The claim for £300, therefore, was preposterous. Counsel suggested that on the face of it the case should bo a lesson to everybody not to take over a house unless an inventory was taken by a competent valuer. He quoted authorities to show that the defendant could only be held liable for wilful damage.