O. F. NELSON’S HOUSE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17249, 3 May 1930, Page 16

O. F. NELSON’S HOUSE

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES ALLEGATIONS DENIED (Per Press Association.) AUCKLAND, last night. The hearing of the claim for £3OO brought against the Hon. O. F. Nelson, the island trader, by Airs Josephine Alice Wilson Smith, widow, for damage alleged to have been caused to a house owned by plaintiff and occupied by defendant from December 1028, until March 14, 1020, was continued in the Magistrates Court ,before Mr. R. W. McKean, S.M. Mr Adams appeared for plaintiff, while Mr. Hall Skelton represented ALrj Nelson.

When the hearing was resumed, Air Skelton stated that he was going to suggest that plaintiff was responsible for the disarrangement of the rooms ami that she lmd scattered straw between the time when defendant vacated the premises and the time the house was inspected by the magistral e five weeks later. Counsel accordingly asked that two witnesses who had been through the house when defendant vacated it should be allowed to inspect it now. Permission was granted. Air. Skelton said a virulent attack had been made on defendant. He would produce witnesses who would say that the house was spotlessly clean while Air, Nelson occupied it. He would stress the fact that no evidence had been brought to show the state of the house at the time Air. Nelson vacated it, apart from that of plaintiff herself. When the court resumed after lunch Mr. Skelton applied for a nonsuit against plaint iff. This was refused,

Defendant, Nelson, stated that when lie arrived from Sydney tie had his whole family, comprising six (laughters, with him, and plaintiff was very anxious to have him and what she called his “charming family” as tenants.

“I have never lived in as bad a house before, and I would not have mu id rent if I had known what rents in Auckland were,” continued Mr. Nelson. “I have lived in the best hotels; T have lived in flats and in honies; and I have never been questioned. My daughters have been educated in Auckland and in Sydney.” Defendant then detailed the state of the articles mentioned in the statement of claim, and described the condition of the furniture when lie took possession of the house. “ You say that it is in practically' the same condition now as it was when you took possession?” asked the magistrate. (< Subject to fair wear and tear,”

replied the doi'endant. j t,o hearing was then adjourned,'