Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CLAIM FOR RENT.

'COUNTER-CLAIM FOLI WORK DONE. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. A. claim for £l7 rent for a cottage in Salisbury Road, Victoria Township, at the. rate' of £1 a week was made in the Court yesterday before Air. J. S. Barton. S.AL, bV lan Sinisnn (Mr. Burnard), against Alfred Skipwortli. Defendant, represented by All-. Kinder, counter-claimed for.£2l 2s 8d for work done. Tire claim was admitted and the counter-claim proceeded with. Defendant gave evidence as to his negotiations fas leasing «the premises, which lie had. got for £1 a week. This was for tiie house and cottage, and the dea 1 was completed im November, 192 b. The lessor had asked witness to fix the place up a bit, and witness did a fair amount or work, which he detailed. .The lessor had stipulated that the cost of the work should be charged to him. Simson had ,however, supplied only six tins of paint, and it was agreed that anything else witness wanted he should get from Air. Jones, the lessor's Gisborne agent. Witness proceeded to detail the general disrepair of the house ymd fittings. Witness had paid for the work done and now claimed for payment: for the improvements effected.

Air. Barnard cross-examined witness as to what Simson had authorised to be done to the premises. Witivss admitted that he had not received an agreement from Simson in regard to compensation for work done, until 3 weeks after he went into the house. Simson had told him, however, before he went into the place to go ahead and do what was necessary, anl ho would be paid for it. A fair amount of work had been done in the first 3 weeks before the agreement came to hand, and witness expecte'd payment for work done during these first three weeks, for any improvements effected apart from those mentioned in the agreement which later came to hand. Quite apart from anything that might be in the agreement'submitted by Simson, he had his oral assurance that witness was to do what was necessary to the premises, and lie would be paid for it.

John Lloyd, Borough building inspector, said he had inspected the house in question before and after Air. Skipworth’s tenancy. The Sewerage was in a bad way, and there were fither defects. After Slcipworth’s tenancy the condition of the premises was much better.

Benjamin Bird, wharfinger, gave evi donee as to the bad condition of the premises before Skipwortli carried out. improvements. . Air. 'Barnard pointed out that defendant l ad submitted no account for work dene until some months after he had eomnleted it.

John Henry Jones, land agent, do posed to heing Sim son’s Gisborne agent. and said Simson had left witness an’ agreement, in regard to compensation mr work done, tc be signed by defendant,' blit the latter refused to sign it. and witness had authorised none of the work for which payment was claimed in the counter-claim, wild) tiie exception of two items, costing less I ban £2 each. allowed for off the"'rent. The house would" have been worth, in good order 35s a week, and in its state, of repair at the time de-feniLr-t trek it over, was worth £1 a week without anything being done to if. The rent did not pay disbursemon Is.

Simson'.-* evidence, taken at Auckland. was read out. It contained a. refutation of liability for payment for work done, apart from that mentioned in the unsigned agreement, and denied that all that had been clone was necessa l'.v.

The Magistrate commented that Simson had left an agreement with Jones to be signetl, but the defendant had declined to do this. On the other hand it was alleged that Simson had given Skipwortli a free hand to do what work he deemed necessary. The defendant had paid rent for 30 weeks otic! made no claim for work done, and it was only recently that a claim had been put in. The agreement had been ignored and defendant had not put things on. any good basis, but had gone light ahead, and could not succeed mu the counter-claim. Judgment would be for plaintiff on the claim fur £47, and also on the counter-claim, with costs amounting to £7 10s.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GIST19220222.2.3

Bibliographic details

Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6318, 22 February 1922, Page 2

Word Count
707

CLAIM FOR RENT. Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6318, 22 February 1922, Page 2

CLAIM FOR RENT. Gisborne Times, Volume LVI, Issue 6318, 22 February 1922, Page 2