DISPUTE OVER HOUSE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 27211, 14 October 1949, Page 4

DISPUTE OVER HOUSE

SUPREME COURT CASE DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE The hearing of evidence was completed yesterday in the adjourned case in the Supreme Court in which Lillian Mowat Clyma, a widow, of Dunedin, proceeded against her son, Cyril Thomas Clyma, a bus driver employed by the Dunedin City Corporation, claiming £B3O, which she alleged was wrongfully retained by the defendant after the sale of a property at Leckhampton Court, Dunedin,' on November 25, 1948. The plaintiff also claimed interest on this amount up to the date of judgment, together with any other relief that the Court might see fit to grant. Mr Justice Kennedy was on the Bench, Mr F. W. Guest appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr R. A. King for the defendant. ' The defendant claimed that he was under no obilgation to pay the plaintiff £Bl5, which .he said ne had received from the sale of the house in dispute. The defence also stated that the plaintiff. before the house was built, had agreed to accept £SOO for the property, but later she refused to take that amount. This sum had been paid intp court. The defendant said in evidence that he offered to build a house for his mother on his section at Leckhampton Court when she found, on her husband s death, that she was unable to maintain her former dwelling. The defendant said that he intended to subdivide the section and give his mother a full title to one pail, on which he had offered to build her the house if she provided the cost of the materials. He had been refused permission to subdivide the section, however, and the owner of an adjacent P r would not sell him enough land to enable him to do so. He told his mother that he would not proceed with the building of the house because the title would be in his name, and this would lead to trouble with her family. His mother said that she wanted the defendant to con tinue with the house as proposed. She later discussed the plans with other members of the family and wrote to the defendant from Auckland, telling him to proceed with the building of the house. The defendant said that the ownership of the property was never discussed. His mother paid £450 to her own solicitor to that he cleared the whole section himself. This involved the removal of an orchard. .He described the building of the house, m which he said that lm had done the greater part of the work, although he was assisted by is brother and brother-in-law at times. This work, and the building of a washhouse, took 12 months. The defendant said that he devoted all his spare time and hu holidays to it. The house was completed on April 5, 1947, and the washhouse was b The‘"defendant sMd 'that 'his mother lived in the house for 10 months. During that time no question of the ownership of the property was raised, and the defendant was not asked to pay any money. Then he received a visit from a brother-in-law who said that he represented the defendant's mother and the family,, who wanted to safeguard the plahitiffls int®rin the house. The defendant said tnat from this time onwards the relationship between himself and his mother grew steadily worse, and he told her that ne W 'The defendant said That.he was told by his wife that the plaintiff was .prepared to move out of the house provided that she received her money back.. The defendant said that he offered his mother £SOO, and said that she could remain in the house, and she agreed to take this money but later refused to accept it, sayinf that she .wanted £6OO. This was la The‘ n defendant° said? 0 that he sold his own house and the new dwelling, which were built on the same section, to a private buyer on condition that his mother should remain as a tenant as long as she wished to do so. The two houses were sold for £1765, of which his own house brought £950. He paid a commission of £56 12s 6d and legal expenses to Cros n s?elamin s ed 6 by Mr Guest the defendant said that his mother had paid £535 for materials for the house. It had been arranged that the house should be his before the plans were taken out. he did not expect that his brother and brother-in-law had offered their services free in building the house. His mother was to live in the house for her lifetime, and then the house would be the defendant’s. In the building of the house the defendant said that he did as. much as his brother and his brother-in-law toearing will be continued this morning, when counsel will address the Court.