UNIQUE CIVIL CASE.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18875, 30 May 1923, Page 8

UNIQUE CIVIL CASE.

LAND AGENT SUED. A CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE. CP bb United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, May 29. A unique case, which was described as the first of the kind to eoino before any court in Now Zealand occupied the attention of Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate’s Court to-day. The plaintiff was Percy Muter (Wellington) and the defendant firm Thomson, Brown, and East(Ltd.), registered land agents. The amount of the claim, which was for. rent duo, board and lodging, and general damages, was £B7. Plaintiff’s statement of claim set out that the defendant company was authorised to lot plaintiff’s house, 93 Coromandel street, at a weekly rental of £3 10s to a suitable, respectable, and financial tenant. The tenant was not allowed to sublet any part of the house. In July, 1922, the defendant company negligently lot the house to,one Bull without malting proper inquiry into the financial position of the tenant. The company also authorised Bull to sublet one room. Bull was unable to pay the rent and 13 weeks’ house rent, amounting to £53, was owing. On plaintiff’s return from Australia Bull refused to give up possession of the house, and plaintiff was put' to the expense of board and lodging for himself, wife, and child, to the extent of £24. Plaintiff suffered inconvenience from the defendant company’s negligence and for this and the above reasons he claimed the sum of £B7, made up of £55 for balance of rent due, £24 for board and lodging, for three persons at 10s per day, and £lO for general damages. Percy Muter gave evidence as to a holiday trip to Australia, and- the instructions given to Thomson, who fixed the rent at £4 per week. The house was not to be sublet, and the tenant desired was a Member of Parliament or a person of that class. The house was valued at £2500, and was well furnished. He also stipulated that lihe house was to bo vacant when he returned. Witness concluded that he got rid of Bull o(ii January 5. 'Pile condition of the house was not so bod as he had expected it to be. The gas had been out off because Bull had not paid for it. The electric light bill was in arroar, and the telephone had been used for long distance calls, the expense (?f which had to bo met by witness. In opening the case for the defendant, Mr Beere pointed out that the matter was a very serious one for Thomson, who was charged with negligence. The period was to lie throe months. Defendant was to receive for his services one week’s rent, £3 10s. JThornson had had to advertise, and showed three or four people over the premises. But he was unable to let it on account of the shortness of the period. Ho wrote to a member of Parliament, but again was unsuccessful. When Bull was first mentioned Thomson inspected the house ho was occupying, to see if ho was a careful tenant and snowed Bull over plaintiff’s property. Ho drew up a proper agreement, checked the inventory, which Muter had made, and inspected the house on three occasions to see if it was in proper order. When Bull became in arrears with the rent he gave him notice to quit and issued summonses for possession and rent. Decision was reserved.