DUNEDIN S M. COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 2842, 2 September 1908, Page 32

DUNEDIN S M. COURT

Monday, August 31. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) George R. Westcott and Grace Crawford Westcott v. Norman Harper Bell. — Claim £17 14-s, for board and lodging for defendant, his wife, daughter, and brother. Defendant put in a counter-olaim for £+7 6s Bd, in -which it was set forth that about February 17 Mrs Westcott agreed to let defendant two unfurnished rooms in her house at Stafford street for - two years, service, attendance, light, and. meals to be provided, the defendant to put in two tiled hearths and furnish the rooms. Defendant furnished the rooms and fixed the hearths at a cost of about £250, and entered into possession, occupying the rooms until July 25. On July 18 Mrs Westootb refused to provide meals for defendant and his wife and daughter, demanded possession of the rooms, and threatened to eject defendant, who wa6 in consequence compelled to give up possession of the rooms, remove and store his furniture, take a house, and set up housekeeping. Defendant claimed that plaintiff owed him £2 16s 8d for goods supplied (two mats at 15s and 201b of tea. at Is 4d), and the balance of the items in. the counter-claim were made up as follows:—Tile hearths, £♦; cost of meals, £4 14s ; removal and storage of furniture, £10 16s ; damages for breach of agreement, £25 —or £47 6s 8d in all.— Mr J. F. M. Fraee^r appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Alex. S. Adams for defendant. — In the course ot Jbis opening remarks Mr Fraeer eaid plaintiffs' claim was "really for £16 4s, as defendant should have been credited with £1 10s for mate supplied. It was really a comic-opera kind of claim, and he proposed to go into a lot of detail. The parties first met at the Coffee Palace, where Mr Westcott was manager and the Bells were boarders. Mr Westcott eubsquently retired six months from the pleasures of boarding-house management, and then by accident plaintiff's wife met defendant's wife in the street, and in the course of conversation the fact came out that Mrs Westcott was looking at the Metropole Hotel, St. Clair, as a- possible boarding-house. Subsequently the suitability of a house in Stafford etreet was discussed, and finally the -Westcotts took this latter house. Mrs Bell then indicated that she would probably be a paying guest at the Westootts'. arid suggested the rooms that would probably suit her. Mr Bell said he was going to etay for two years, but Mrs Westcott never dreamt that this implied a two years' agreement. Mr and Mrs Bell went to stay with the Westcotta at £3 a week, and for a time all went well. Then defendant announced that his daughter was coming alsor and Mrs Westcott flatly refused to take her. However, the daughter came, the charge for her board and lodging being 25s a week. The eituation developed until the Westcotts raised Mr and Mrs Bell's tariff to £3 10s a week. Then payment for board and lodging stopped. The Westcotte intimated at last that they would out off the food supplies of these particular boarders, and carried out their notification. Mr Bell's answer was a letter intimating that he intended going , with hia family to take their meals in aj ' hotel, and that he would charge the costi to Mr We^t-cot*;. — Evidence was given in support of plaintiff's claim by George R. Westcott and Grace Crawford Westcott. — In opening the defence Mr Adams eaid that Mr Bell had sent in a cheque foi the j amount due up to the preceding Saturday according to the scale first charged, the claim for the extra 5s a week being disputed. After the lapse of some days the cheque was returned, the statement being made that Mrs Westcott was advised that she should not accept it. On the Saturday j evening the maid did not set the table, ! and Mr and Mrs Bell were refused their , meals. A Saturday evening was the most inconvenient time for Mr Bell to arrange for meals outside. — Evidence was given on ' behalf of defendant by James Annand. — His Worship, in giving judgment, said there was no doubt in his mind that Mr Bell understood he was going to remain in the house for two years — that was, it was hist intention to Temain there two j r ears if everything went all right. The question was whether there was a valid contract. An agreement of this kind to hia (Mr Wrddowson's* mind must be clearly proved, and the question was : Was it clearly proved in this caee? It wae doubtful whether there was corroborative evidence, and there was considerable doubt loft in his (Mr Widdoweon'e) mind on the point. He muefc hold that the agreement had nott been proved. Mr Bell wa? a keen business nian, and he (his Worship) could only cay it was much to be regretted that these agreements, if they existed, were not reduced to writing. There seemed to be6Ome doubt about the notice. Mr Bell alleged it was not given till the Monday, and Mr Westcotl said it was given on the Saturday. He (Mr Widdoweon) was not disposed to think it was given on Saturday, and was of the opinion that Mr Bell no doubti I

' thought he was going to remain for two, years, but there had been friction. He (Mh* Widdowson) was not going to be very particular about hie estimate. He then proceeded to deal with the various items ia the counter-claim. Some of • these he allowed, and some portion of the plaintiffs', claim he disallowed, finally giving judgment for plaintiffs for £8 17s 4d, with cost* I £1 15s.