CONDITION OF HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20601, 27 June 1930, Page 11

CONDITION OF HOUSE.

CASE AGAINST 0. F. NELSON. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. TOTAL OF £66 ALLOWEDJudgment for £53 13s 6d, rsprssent* ing damages to specified articles, and also for £l2 12s, comprising two weeks' rent, was given by Mr- W. EL McKaan. S.M., ia the Magistrate's Court yesterday in tfcw case in which Mrs. Josephine Wilson-Smith proceeded against Mr. 0F. Nelson, Island trader, for £SOO for damage alleged to have been caused to plaintiffs house during Nelson's tenancy from December, IS2B, until March, ISjO, and for loss of rant. Mrs. Wilson-Smith claimed £275 Ss for damage to the house and, furnishings, £25 4s for loss cf rent caused by defendant's failure to give notice to quit and during the period of repairs, and £SO general damages, a total cf £550 12s, which was reduced to £SOO to bring it within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. Mr, Leslie Adams appeared for plaintiff, and defendant was represented by Mr. Eall Skeitoa. Stating that it had been arranged after the action had been commenced on April 7 that he should visit l&e premises, the magistrate said that he had found the honso in a dusty state, with the carpets threadbare and curled, the blinds torn, the curtains torn, ornaments broken, furniture coverings dirty and torn, and walls and ceilings stained. This was four weeks after defendant had vacated.

JTo Inventory Prepared. P!aintis had alleged that defendant had been responsible for all tMs oendsaan, bat it was obvious that he had not been responsible for ranch, of it, said Mr. McKean. No inventory had been prepared when defendant took possession, and the conflict of evidence given had shown how desirable it tras that an inventory shonld be prepared by a competent person when a house was rented furnished. " To assess the plaintir s damages is very difficult," continued the magistrate. " Even from the plaintiff herself I have not bad the precise isiennatioa .thai shonld have beei Riven, with regard _to many articles of finmitjarp. The plaintiff says that -wheat defendant took DGSSesson the house was tastefully although net expensively furnished and thai everything was in good order and clean. The defendant says that the place -was hi a deplorable state when he took it and his daughter confirms his evidence. " I find ii much easier to believe that the house was in the condition described by plaintiff than to believe that defendant was willing to pay £3 Ss a week for a house in the condition that he asserts."

Assessing the Damages. The magistrate then dealt with the condition of carpets in the various rooms, curtains and blinds, and the bedding, for ail of which he assessed damages. "A. claim is made for repapering all the bedrooms, and for painting the kitchen, and bathroom and for restarting all the floors," he continued. " The wallpapers certainly need renewing, hut there is no evidence of wilful damage or unfair treatment by defendant. As far as the floors are concerned, plaintiff may wish to have them restained, hoi I ,do not know on what ground she her claim against deefndanL" After dealing with the paintwork in the kitchen and bathroom, and the state of the chairs, the magistrate said that there had been no contradiction as to items which were missing from the house and he would have to allow claims in full in respect cf them. The claim for two weeks* rent created no difficulty, hut a farther demand far another two wesks* rent could not be allowed. In conclusion, Mr. MeSeaa grra a detailed account of the specified damages of £35 13s &&, of which the main items were carpets, £10; matoress, £sj repairs to airr? chesterfield, £2; liadeam in kitchen, £6; ornaments, £5; forks and spoons, £3 sa; dinner service, £5: and bedscread, £4 10s. * 7 * . ■ 5b General Das ages Allowed. "I have received instructions to appeal," said Mr. Hall SkeJiom who asksii. the magistrate to fix security. Mr. MeKean then named the sum of £2O. An application for general damages in addition to the specified damages was made by Mr. Adams,, and was refused by the magistrate. " 1 cannot see that it is a case in which sack damages should he given." said Mr. McKean. "The claim has been exaggerated. I do net consider there has been wilful damage or general destruction of property, although there has been soma unfair wear and tear." Mr. Adams was allowed solicitor's ■ fee, £4 ss. and Court costs, £5 lis, while witnesses 1 expenses were left to. be settled by counsel in consultation. Later in the day Mr. Adams claimed £55 5s 5d for witnesses, and as counsel for defendant refused to consider this amount, the matter will be argued by counsel before Mr. McKean this morning.