“FRAME UP” ALLEGED

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 985, 30 May 1930, Page 12

“FRAME UP” ALLEGED

CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST HON. 0. F. NELSON

EXPERT EVIDENCE GIVEN

“This case is obviously a 'frameup,' and the claim an outrageous one,” declared Mr. Hall Skelton, when a claim for £3OO damages by Mrs. Josephine Wilson Smith, against the Hon. O. F. Nelson, was continued this morning in the Magistrate’s Court before Mr. W. R. McKean, The claim was for £3OO for alleged damage to furniture, furnishings and chattels, also fur rent, said to be overdue on a house in Mount Hobson Road, Remuera, rented by plaintiff to Mr. Nelson from December, 1928, to early in March of last year. Mr. Skelton said he proposed to call expert evidence to show that the house was from 14 to 20 years old and had never been repaired. The furnishings and construction were of the cheapest materials, and certain damage was due to water leakage from the roof which could not be attributed to defendant’s neglect. “I saw myself roof leaked,” commented the magistrate. William Frost, a vacuum cleaner of seven years’ experience, said he was called in by Mrs. Nelson about 10

months ago. He cleaned every window in the house and to do so had to enter each room. He saw everything was in fairly good keeping, but that the house was not new. The two Miss Nelsons were then busy cleaning and polishing. When he saw the house recently everything appeared to be the same and he believed that nothing had been damaged in that time. The bathroom showed no change. SHABB V WALLPAPER “The wallpaper was okl. shabby and faded when we went in and was patched in one room,” said Irene Nelson, a daughter of defendant. The drawing-room carpet was so old that it was threadbare and several curtains had to be mended. They were old and faded. A few upstairs had been taken down as they were in the way and were packed in the linen press. They would have been ironed had Mrs. Smith not instructed otherwise. The bath was covered with “green stuff and rust,” especially under the califont, which was out of order, and appeared as though it had not been cleaned for months. “Wo aro not used to throwing curtains underneath the house,” countered witness when Mr. Skelton repeated evidence for plaintiff concerning the alleged throwing of certain articles under the house. “Wo could not use any of the pots and pans in the kitchen until we had washed them,” continued witness. They had complained to Mrs. Smith, who explained that her maid was to blame. Two lorry-loads of rubbish were taken from the back garden, and in spite of heaps of shells which had been left there recently, was now much cleaner than at the beginning of their tenancy.

Before they left, the house had been scrubbed and polished; the windows and carpets cleaned; and the linen sent to the laundry, Mrs. Smith had no complaints to make at the time. Some of the chairs had been recovered during their tenancy, continued witness. They had put up with certain inconveniences*, as they did not know how long they would be in occupation. Boor knobs and leadlights had to bo attended to at their own expense, and drains cleared.

“You can’t infer anything from the state of the drains, as defendant had been in the house for' 12 months before these became blocked,” commented the magistrate.

“Although Mrs. Smith called frequently, and could see the condition we were keeping the house in, she did not complain once.” said witness. One carpet had obviously been dragged about after their tenancy ended, and was not in the condition they left it. ‘WICKED UNTRUTH”

“It’s n wicked untruth,” declared Miss Nelson, referring to a suggestion by plaintiff that an arrangement had been made with Mrs. Wilson-Smith that the girls should meet “some of the boys of Auckland.” A valuer, Thomas Davies, of 30 years’ experience in all branches of valuation, said that, apart from-crock-ery and cutlery-, he valued the whole houseful of furniture at £295. It would cost about £SOO to refurnish the house in present styles.

The furniture had been insured for £ 500, but this had been increased lately to £7OO, being now “ridiculously over-insured.” This did not suggest that any damage had been done during the Nelsons’ tenancy*.

Giving it as his expert opinion, from the manner of wear and the carpet’s construction, that the diningroom carpet was about 15 years old, the witness said it had apparently been cut into three pieces on being moved from a larger room. According to signs, it had been worn out some years ago, and was valueless before the Nelson family moved in. It was certainly more than seven years old, as had been declared by plaintiff, and did not bear the brand of the firm from which it was said to have been bought. Witness dealt in detail with various carpets and curtains in the house, declaring that their condition was due largely to old age. There was no sign of rough usage or damage to furniture during recent years. Certain chairs were of a design ten to twelve years old. The linoleum was of the cheap quality and the wallpaper had been up for some years, showing no wanton damage.

“The bathroom was out-of-date and i needs renewing,” said witness. Jt was j not dirty so much as dingy. The whole house did not give him the im- j pression of one that had been kept in ; proper repair, but lie saw nothing to I suggest wilful, damage. DISARRAY, NOT DAMAGE “Mv first impression was one of i dirtiness and damage, but further ex- j animation showed it was rather dis- » array,” witness continued. “There was ' not one article in the house which I would cost £ls today.” “I f ail to see why 3*oll .are stressing this so greatly*,” said the magistrate. Vour own witnesses have said that i the house was in a deplorable state I and now 3*oll appear to be trying to show that your client, rather than 1 damaging the house, actuallv improved ! the property.” j “I have been showing the Court that the place was not left in a dirty condi- 1 tion. replied Mr. Skelton. ! "Then our ideas of dirt differ.” re- i torted the magistrate, who added that I lie, hail inspected the house himself. I • i f°H r c ? ment when the case opened i that the house was in a deplorable ' condition has been published through- ! out the Dominion and has done my i cll ®nt n,uc!l harm,” said Mr. Skelton. j I 11 repeat again that it was in a i deplorable condition,” said the magis- I trate. pointing out that he had not sue- ! r * kelson was respon- j Evidence was still being heard under i cross-examination - when the Court ad- I journed at one o’clock.