UNUSUAL WANGANUI CASE UNDER FAIR RENTS ACT

Wanganui Chronicle, 30 November 1948, Page 7

UNUSUAL WANGANUI CASE UNDER FAIR RENTS ACT

Sale Of Furniture To Incoming Tenants

An unusual case, involving alleged offences against the provisions of the Fahr Rents Amendment Act, 1947„ came before Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrates Court, Wanganui, yesterday. Amin Bahout, retired, of Wellington, and Robert Leslie Garden, land agent, Wanganui, were charged separately with having committed offences arising out of the sale of furniture in a dwelling which was taken over by a young married couple. It was alleged by the Labour Department, which prosecuted, that the price paid for the furniture was in excess of the. fair selling value. The case against Bahout, represented by Mr. G. C. Kent, Wellington, was taken first and after hearing lengthy evidence, the magistrate reserved his decision. The charge against Garden, for whom Mr. J. S. Rumbold appeared, was adjourned sine die. Both defendants had pleaded not guilty. Bahout was charged that between July 12, 1948, and August 2, he did stipulate, demand and accept as a condition of the transfer of the tenancy of a dwelling at 8 Church Place, the sum of £250 in payment for the furniture, such sum being in excess of the fair selling value, in breach of Section 6 (d) of the Fair Rents Amendment Act, 1947. Garden was charged that on the same dates he did stipulate, demand and accept for himself or for another person a premium or like sum of £5O from Max Wilson Hill for the purpose of obtaining a dwelling for occupancy by Hill as a tenant, contrary to the Fair Rents Amendment Act, 1947. DEPARTMENT’S CASE. Opening the case for the prosecution, Mr. M. C. Lundon, who appeared for the Labour Department, said that early last July a young married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Max Wilson Hill, with twins aged 14 months, were living in two rooms and paying a rental of 30s a week. The conditions were very unfavourable, and on July 12 they saw an advertisement in a Wanganui newspaper to the effect that the house in Church Place was to let for £1 a week, a condition being that the incoming tenant pay £250 for the furniture. The couple replied to this advertisement, and two days later were communicated with by Garden. Hill had £lOO in cash and, after agreeing to take the place, had to raise £l5O elsewhere. In order to recuperate themselves, however, the Hills decided to sell the furniture which they had bought from the defendant Bahout. An auction was held and it realised £99 gross. In reply to the magistrate, Mr Lundon said that though Hill paid over £250, Bahout received £2OO. The Hills sold the radio privately for £lO and a mirror for £l, so that on the transaction they were about £lOO short, Mr. Lundon added. EVIDENCE OF WIFE. Shirley Frances Hill, married, said in evidence that with her husband she went to the house in Church Place and met Garden, Bahout and the latter’s daughter, Miss Bahout. They inspected the furniture and witness asked Miss Bahout if they would get their money back. Miss Bahout replied that they were lucky, because in most places it was necessary to pay goodwill to get into a house. Witness and her husband agreed to take the house in Church Place and moved in next morning. There was nothing modern about the furniture thev had purchased, and as they possessed furniture of their own and had borrowed money, it was decided to sell the articles purchased from. Bahout. From an auction sale which was held witness and her husband received like £B3. Witness added that as they had lost more than £lOO she wrote to Miss Bahout asking her to refund £5O. Miss Bahout, in renly, stated that they had received £2OO for the furniture, and that the agent had received £5O. ADVERTISED OPENLY. Cross-examined by Mr. Kent, witness said that she had been told tnere were 70 applicants for the house in Church Place. She did not approach the Labour Department till after the auction sale. “We had borrowed money and had to pay it back,” witness added. She admitted that she had expressed gratitude to the Bailouts for selecting them as the successful applicants. The price of the furniture was advertised openly in Wanganui newspapers and witness and her husband inspected it. Mr.* Kent: Do you really think that Mr. Bahout and his daughterwanted to cheat you over the matter? Witness: I don’t know that. As a result of the auction sale this furniture is now scattered all over Wanganui ?—“Yes.” Do you realise that in doing that you prevented us from getting an independent valuation of the furniture, or even buying it back?—“l suppose it has.” Cross-examined further witness admitted that she had retained £3O worth of the furniture for their own use. Mr. Kent: The burden of your trouble is that the auction sale did not produce what you had paid for the furniture? —“Tha- is so.” The husband of the previous witness, Max Wilson Hill, said he replied to the advertisement and met Garden in his ofiice on the morning of Friday, July 16. Garden drove witness to the house in Church Place and said that it would cost £250 for the furniture to get into the place. Garden said he was agent for the landlord and also for Bahout. At No. 8 Church Place witness was introduced to Bahout and his daughter, but witness did not have any actual dealings with them. All Ihe dealings were with Garden. After deciding to take the place witness paid him £lOO in cash and subsequentlv gave him a solicitor’s c heque for £l5O. Cross-examined by Mi 1 . Kent, witness agreed that the Bahouts had said the furniture was insured 12 months previously for £2OO. Mr. Kent: Nobody forced you to buy? Witness: Only that we were in desperate need of a place. James Herbert Golding Alp, auctioneer, said 50 to 60 neonle were present at the sale which he conducted at 8 Church Place. Bidding was quite good and prices were in line with what he had received at previous sales, particularly in view of Ihe quality of the articles. Apart from a radio and a mhror. o reserve was placed on the furniture. C ASE FOR DEFENCE. Opening the case for the defence, Mr. Kent said that defendant was 70 years of age and a man of failing health. He had never dealt in furniture or done any business of this kind in the past. He had an unblemished record and was highly respected by all who knew him. Earlier in the year, counsel added, defendant’s son in Wellington decided to enter business

and his daughter thought she could help her brother. Defendant then reluctantly agreed to go to Wellington and saw the landlord of the Church Place house regarding a transfer of the tenancy. The landlord referred defendant to Garden, who was agent for the property and collected the rents. Defendant subsequently told Garden that he wanted £2OO, no more and no less, for the furniture. He believed that he would be doing somebody a service by allowing them to have it. Defendant Lad insured the furniture for £2OO, and had been told by an assessor that he could insure it for £3OO. The whole matter was virtually taken out of defendant’s hands by the agent. Defendant received £2OO and that was all he was interested in.

“I cannot call expert evidence as to the value of the furniture because it is now scattered all over Wanganui,” Mr. Kent added. The onusw as on the prosecution to prove that the price paid by the Hills for the furniture was in excess of the fair selling value, but the Act made no attempt to define the fair selling price. This was left to a large extent to the imagination of Lie Court to determine. The prosecution had failed to prove that the furniture was not true to value. DEFENDANTS EVIDENCE. Defendant said in evidence that he told the agent that tne furniture was insured for £2OO and that was the price he wanted. He saw that the furniture was advertised for £250, however, and when questioned, the agent said that he had made the price £250 in case peoplep ut him down in price. The furniture was in good condition. In reply to the magistrate, defendant said he understood from Garden that the furniture would be sold for £2OO. Defendant had offered to pay commission on that sum. Nanette Bahout, daughter of defendant, said her father was not well enough to conduct business and it was left in the agent’s hands. “We were completely ignorant as to how to go about it,” witness added. The Hills appeared “terribly keen” about the place and had every opportunity of inspecting the furniture and were supplied with an inventory. The house was fully furnished with everything required. Another man who inspected the house walked in, looked at the inventory and was prepared to make out a cheque for the amount asked. He did not even want to inspect the furniture, but was satisfied with the inventory. “I believe with my whole heart that it was a very, very fair price,” said witness. In reply to the magistrate, witness said she was referring to the insured price of £2OO, which her father was asking. Cross-examined by Mr Lundon, witness said that in conversation with Mrs. Hill she inferred that they, as purchasers, were getting a bargain. Witness added that she was not seeking goodwill. Mrs. Marjory C. Watts, Wanganui, said she knew the Bahouts when they lived in Wanganui. Their home was very comfortable and well kept. She thought the price paid by the Hills for the furniture was very fair. Witness also attended the auction. There had been rain and it was not a particularly good d: y. She did not think that the prices realised were what they should have been. In reply to the magistrate, witness said that she thought the prices at the auction were -n the cheap side and lower than she had expected. At the conclusion of the evidence, Mr. Kent invited the Court to look at the matter broadly and say whether this was a fair arid reasonable price. The magistrate: You dispute the agent’s authority to charge more than £200? Mr. Kent: Yes.

The magistrate said that as this was a involving new Statutes which came into force last year, and as the evidence was conflicting, he would reserve his decision.