CLAIM FOR £350.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19917, 2 May 1930, Page 3

CLAIM FOR £350.

DAMAGE TO RESIDENCE AND APPOINTMENTS. SUIT AGAINBT 0. F. NELSON. [THE PBBSS Special Service.] AUCKLAND, May 1. "It is really incredible that human beings could live in a place, and reduce it to the State it is In at the present time," said Mr Adams, in tho Magistrate's Court this morning, in advancing a claim for approximately £350, brought by Josephine Wilson Smith, widow, of Auckland, against 0. F. Nelson, a well-known Samoan merchant, in respect to damages alleged to have been caused to a residence in Remuera during the latter's occupancy of it. During the hearing of the case Mr McKean, S.M., said he had inspected plaintiff's property, and it wa» in »-shocking state. , Plaintiff, in her' statement of claim, said Nelson occupied her house In Mount Hobson road, Remuera, from December, 1928, to March 14th, 1930, as a monthly tenant. In addition to having the use of the house he had the use of all chattels, furniture, and personal effects. It was alleged that during his occupancy he wilfully or negligently damaged the house and appurtenances, and in this connexion the sum of £275 was claimed to cover necessary repairs, replacements, etc. In addition £SO general damages were sought, and £25 to cover the loss occasioned 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. Originally, said Mr Adams, plaintiff rented her property to defendant for four weeks at a rental of £8 8s per week, the figure being increased because defendant was to have the use of nupsry, linen, and cutlery placed in ths house by request. From time to time the length of the tenancy was increased, as defendant was not prepared to take a lease owing to the possibility of his having to return to Samoa. Mr Hall Skelton (who appeared for the defendant): My client wanted it to be taken. Mr Adams-said that in May last Mrs Smith went to Australia, and she was harassed by cablegrams from defendant pressing for a reduction in the rent. It was reduced to £6 6s, and remained at that figure till Nelson vacated the premises in January of this year. He (Mr Adams), on behalf of plaintiff, en- : tered into an arrangement with defendant by which 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. Defendant, however, subsequently vacated the premises giving a fortnight's notice only. 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 condition, but after much deliberation the aura of £275 had been arrived at less £l2. Evidence would be called to prove that when defendant took possession of the property it was a home belonging to a person with taste. The furniture was not all new, but 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 E had been left in, counsel said that fortunately plaintiff had 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 mattresses had been damaged, and silverware had been placed under the house. When recovered it was covered I with verdigris. For evidence of vandalism it would be hard to find anything worse than that. Mr Skelton protested that the story that wbb being related, and the one that would be told for the defence would reveal y that the matter was purely political, to damage his client. Mr Adams denied that he was in any way .concerned with politics. Mr* MoKeah: I cannot see how politics enter into the matter. I have seen the house. It was in a shocking state the day I saw it. . Evidence was given by the plaintiff and other witnesses relative to the state Of the house before and after Nelson's tenancy, and the ease, which may last another two days, was then adjourned.