UNUSUAL TENANCY CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 3613, 12 June 1923, Page 46

UNUSUAL TENANCY CASE.

CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE. WELLINGTON, June 7. A reserved decision in an unusual civil case, described as the first of tlie class to be dealt with in New Zealand, and lhe second to be reported in the British Empire, was given by -Mr W. G. Riddell, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court to-day. The plaintiff, Percy Muter (Wellington), proceeded against the firm of Thomson, Brown, and East (Ltd.), land agents, for £37, which included claims for rent due, board ana lodging for three persons, and general damages. Plaintiff alleged that in June, 1922, defendant negligently let iiis house to Joseph. Wager Bull at a weeklyrental of £3 10s. without making reasonable or proper inquiry into his financial or other position; that Bull was unable to pay the rent reserved and left plaintiff’s house after the rent, had run into arrears to the extent of £35: that Bull refused to give up possession of the premises upon plaintiff’s return from Australia, wit-h the result that lie was put to the expense of board and lodgings for himself and his family for 16 days. General damages to the extent, of £lO were claimed. According to Lie magistrate, tiie question was as to whether defendant acted negligently in choosing Bull as a tenant under the conditions existing just before the tenancy was commenced. Actions such as the present were extremely rare, and there was very little authority to guide the court in arriving at a decision. If a land agent were employed to procure a tenant he must use reasonable diligence to ascertain that the person to whom the property was let through his agency was fit. to be a tenant. In view of the law laid down by the authorities anci a statement by Mr Justice Wills that an agent cannot be expected to guarantee rent if he has taken reasonable care in selecting a tenant, concluded Lie bench. “I think that defendant, cannot be held liable for the rent lost by plaintiff, nor do I think the evidence shows the subletting of the premises by Bull. Further, as plaintiff failed in respect of the rent, claimed, it fellows that he must fail i;i regard to the other items of damage.” Judgment was accordingly filtered for defendant with substantial costs.