ALLEGED DAMAGE

Southland Times, Issue 21073, 3 May 1930, Page 7

ALLEGED DAMAGE

OCCUPATION OF HOUSE.

HEARING ADJOURNED. (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 2. The hearing of a claim for £3OO brought against the Hon. 0. F. NeLson, island trader, by Mrs. Josphino Alice Wilson Smith, widow, for damages alleged to have been caused to a house owned by plaintiff and occupied by defendant from December 1928 until March 14, 1929, was continued in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. McKean S.M. Mr. Adams appeared for plaintiff while Mr. Hall Skelton represented Nelson. When the hearing was resumed, Mr. Skelton stated he was going to suggest that plaintiff was responsible for the disarrangement of the rooms and that she had scattered straw between the time when defendant vacated the premises and the time the house was inspected by the Magistrate 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. Mr. Skelton said a verulent attack had been made on defendant. He would produce witnesses who would say that the house was spotlessly clean while Nelson occupied it. He would'stress the fact that no evidence had been brought to show the state of the house at the time NeLson vacated it, apart from that of plaintiff herself. When the court resumed after lunch, Mr. Skelton applied for a non-suit against plaintiff. This was refused. Defendant Nelson stated that when he arrived from Sydney he had his whole family, comprising six daughters 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 paid the rent if I had known what rents in Auckland were,” continued Nelson. “I have lived in the best hotels, I lived in flats and in homes, 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 he took possession of the house. “You say 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 defendant. The hearing was adjourned.