O. F. NELSON SUED

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19918, 3 May 1930, Page 20

O. F. NELSON SUED

ALLEGED DAMAGE TO HOUSE.

DEFENDANT IN THE BOX.

[THE PEE S3 Special Service.]

AUCKLAND, May 2. Suggestions that an attack had been launched against his client and attempts were being made to load him with the entiro depreciation of old furniture were made by Mr Hall Skelton, in tho Magistrate's Court, in opening the. case for the defence, in the action brought by Josephine Alice Wilson Smith, against 0. F. Nelson, Samoan merchant. Plaintiff claimed £3OO in respect to damages alleged to have been caused to her home in Remuera during Nelson's occupancy of it from December, 3925, to March 11th last.^ When the case was resumed this morning, Mr Hall Skelton, for the defendant, said lie was going to suggest that plaintiff herself was responsible for the disarrangement of the house, and the scattered straw found in it The defence would contend that iho property had been upset between the time Nelson vacated it and the visit bv the Magistrate live weeks later. Counsel asked leave to take witnesses to the house to show that it was no «lirty when Nelson left. Mr McKean, S,M., raised no objection to the proposal,' providing Mr Hall Sltelton thought an inspection would assist in tbe case. , t "As I suggested when the case tor tha 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. ' 1 There had been an attempt to show that his client and his family were very unclean people, the inference being that tbey 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 tho evidence adduced." . Mr McKean: I don't know that that is so. ■ • 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 Samoau that these suggestions are made Mr McKean: I don't think so. I was asked to inspect this house, and I was Shown the condition of things. The conclusion I came to was that they were deplorable; I certainly would not have occupied the house myself. Mr Skelton: You went there five weeks after defendant vacated the place. Counsel pointed out that before Nelson left Mrs saw the house and did i*ot cpmplain of the deplorable conditions, buk merely of the disappearance of . some .cups. The'main point of attack was on the personal standing ** of defendant and his family. The matter was vital to their well-being, as defendant .had stayed in various parts of tho. world and had never Had a complaint like the present one/ before, visitors, to his home in. would say that it compared with any in New Zealand, and contained furniture worth thousands of pounds. His daughters were educated, at the best 1 schools in Australia and-New Zealand. Mr. MoKean: 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 niade 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 ruin defendant if he should require another'house in Auckland. We. will establish, however, that plaintiff'a .home was pulled about after ; defendant vacated it. While witnesses had talked in generalities of the fllthiness of the house, their evi-. dence was of an inferior type becauso they could not state specifically where damage had, been done. Mr McLean: Do you,say the furniture' was. not the same as when defendant vacated the < place*. Mr Skelton:' We Bay it was practically thd tasj .when defendant .wenf'ih. / . .... « Mr M'cK'ean: lam surprised that he toojt" ft; then.. ■" Mr Stefan' said' that Nelson, had a reputation ',' for cle&'nUness. - He Was' spotless in bis attire and iri th? keeping of his home; . Evidence* in substantiation of that' fact would be 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 hotlse-was very, plain, and the defence would, complain that the wash-house was also a storeroom and the bathroom - was in a shocking condition. A gramo--phone which'' it alleged had .been thrown out was' rusty and worthless and had not been used for years. To : cloud oVer the real issue, said Mr Skelton, reference was made 7 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 valuations 6f.' damage caused to the furniture rtitd effects. The plaintiff had also tried to load the Whole depreciation of-.the furniture from the time it was purchased on to Nelson as a result of his-, fifteen months' occupancy of the home. It had suffered tho wear and tear of -two fainifies, but that fact was not taken into consideration - "by -witnesses in assessing the ; damage. . No inventory was taken, although defendant had desired it. The original value of. the furniture was £.460, and to-day ..it .was assessed'at £295. The

claim for £3OO • therefore was preposterous. 'Counsel suggested that on the face of ft the cape .should, be a lesson to everybody not to take over a house unless an- inventory was'taken- by a competent valuer. He quoted authorities to short-that defendant' could only be held liable for wilful damage. Defendant's Evidence.

Mir Skelt'on called 0., F. Nelson, who ■aid he had. occupied the house.. When he arrived from Sydney he had his whole family, comprising six daughters, with. him,, and plaintiff was very anxi r ous to have him and what Bhv called charmiqg family" as tenants, agreeing to buy further iinen and household. article's. "Wo were not in there vej-y long before 2 asked her to effect certain repairs,'and- she said she could not uf- , ford' to do that/* continued defendant, "1 said at least you can make the I place habitable fpr' us. There were some lead lights which had fallen. off* the hinges on the window above the main staircase were ready to fall off, and some of thp door knobs were missing. She agreed to do these repairs, but instead-of .getting new door knobs she got a man to take them from somewhere else. The leadjights were never done until. I did them myself." Mr Skelton produced an account for impairs carried out to defendant's orders amounting to £2 10s 2d, and a further bill for £5 5s 4d for ropairs. "T have • never lived in as bad a house before;,,and I would not have paid the rent if I had known what wits In Auckland, Vwcre," continued Tfolson. <"I have lived in the beet hotels, I have lived in flats and in homes, and I have never been quesHosed, • Sly dtiuglitciM have been ecki*

catod in Auckland aiid Sydney." Defendant then detailed tho state of the articles mentioned.in the statement of claim, and described the condition of the furniture when he took possession of the house.. '' You say . it. is in practically tho some condition now as it was when you took poßsessiojil" asked the Magistral?, /'Subject to fair wear and tear," replied defendant. The hearing of the case was then adjourned.