"SAMUEL SMILES" AGAIN.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 1914, 7 September 1921, Page 7

"SAMUEL SMILES" AGAIN.

——* — Sir, —I am pleased that my letter in your Monday's issue in connection with the house-hunting problem, like the lover's epistle, has struck the vital part intended by "Samuel Smiles." The long endeavour of your correspondent, "A. P. Bradley," to try and explain a most unsatisfactory reply, serves the direct opposite effect, which your correspondent must expect when he reads it in cold print. Seeing that Mr Bradley is designated "land agent," he must surely be aware of the fact that the tenant is protected by law, and has the right to refuse any person to view the inside of the premises of which he holds a weekly, monthly, or yearly tenancy. So far as talang a montji to recount my experiences with your correspondent, let me assure A. P. Bradley that, owing to the busy nature attendant on my multifarious duties in various capacities, I took the first presentable opportunity to let the public know of the eager, or bustling sale methods of the present-day land agents. On the other hand, at the present mpment, purchasers have the opportunity to pick and choose properties that are suitable to them, of which there are a large number in Palmerston North ready to be unloaded with small deposits, and balance as rent. "Samuel Smiles" has a reputation of almost half a century in various places throughout the. Dominion (save Auckland), and this he holds more sacred than all the land agents' licenses In Masseyland. Your correspondent's, A. P. Bradley's, effusion about "doors and floors being confused," reminds "Samuel Smiles" of the tale of the little dog with the "side pocket—there's nothing in it." "Samuel Smiles" wishes to definitely assure your correspondent in the same emphatic manner as he did the landlord, that he has no intention of being committed to Porirua for paying £7OO for the premises in which were erected over 20 years ago, and during that time have had little or no attention. Which, by the way, reminds me that your correspondent has not denied my statement that he had thoroughly inspected the premises I am living in, which I can; by undeniable evidence, prove my former statements to be strictly in accordance with fact. Your correspondent says he had intended showing mo through the premises next door, but what right did he have to do this, when as a matter of fact this property was sold to another man over two months ago. and was not in the market, for sale?

The concluding portion of your correspondent's, A. P. Bradley's letter, is ns loose in statements of fact as it is possible to conceive, which I urn prepared lo prove to any reputable person or persons not nominated by the band 'Agents' Association. —T am. etc., "SAMUEL SMILES."