CONDITION OF HOUSE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 103, 3 May 1930, Page 10

CONDITION OF HOUSE

ALLEGATIONS OF DAMAGE. CLAIM AGAINST TENANT. [ Per Press Association ] AUCKLAND Alay 2. The hearing of a claim for £3OO brought against O. F. Nelson, 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, 1928, until March 14, 1929, was continued in the Alagistrate’s Court before Air R. W. AlcKean S.M. Air Adams appeared for plaintiff while Air Hall Skelton represented NelWhen the hearing was resumed Air Skelton stated that 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. 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 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 veryanxious to have him and what she called his “charming family” as tenants. “1 have never lived in as bad a house before and I would not have paid the rent if 1 had known what rents in Auckland were,” continued Nelson. “1 have lived in the best hotels, I have Jived in flats and in homes, and I have never been questioned. Aly 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 Ihe 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 Alagistrate. “Subject to fair wear and tear,” replied defendant. The hearing was adjourned.