OWNER'S CLAIM

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 2, Issue 169, 5 June 1940, Page 5

OWNER'S CLAIM

FORMER TENANT OF HOUSE SUED -FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE ALLEGED The only defended civil case 'to be heard in the Magistrate's ■Court yesterday was that in "which Mrs Alice Brown claimed £10 16s 6d from J. Miles, had occupied a house own . 'ed by plaintiff for six and who, alleged Mrs Brown, had failed to give sufficient notice of termination of occupancy. It was further stated that defendant had damaged Jsoth the, t-uildiing and fittings. Judgment was given for plaintiff in equity and good conscience for the sum of £2 12s, with costs. Witnesses' expenses were *>ot allowed. \ Mr E. L. Walton, S.M w y as on Bench. Mr R. F. Smith appear «d for plaintiff while defendant was represented by Mr E. Armstrong. In opening his case, Mr Smith said that part of the claim was for one month's rent in lieu of notice. There had been no written agreement made as to tenancy. Actually defendant had written notice on IVlarch 16 and it had been received by plaintiff on March 18. Miles had vacated the premises on March 25th. Counsel quoted cases bearing on the claim to prove that one month's notice was necessary. Alleged Damage. The second part of the claim, -said Mr Smith, Avas for damage done while defendant was renting tHe house. When defendant toon "possession the house was in good order. Before he had left he had cut a man-hole in the hall ceiling in order to gain access for wiring. There was a number of loclis and -Iveys missing. The Magistrate: Wouldn't you have to prove lie threw them away or borke them? There was also clothes prop missing. The Magistrate: Can you prove that defendant took it? The califont attachment • nozzle Iliad been rendered useless. Plaintiff Gives. Evidence. Alice Brown, in the witness box, said she was the owner of premises let to Miles. The tenancy had com-, inenced in 1934. There was no agreement in writing. Miles had agreed to pay 18s per week, payable monthly in advance. That arrangement obtained for 3y 2 years, when defendant went for a holiday and got behind with the rent. Mrs Miles had told her tliat defendant was on a salary and that the rent would be paid fortnightly. All the notice she had received that the occupancy - "had been terminated by Miles w"as the note she "received on March 18th. Regarding the repairs to the hall ceiling she had had to call in a builder for the purpose. The back door key had evidently been lost and the estimated cost of replacing the locks and keys was £1 ss. Witness detailed the damage done to the stove and added that the cleaning shovel for the chip-heater was missing. The clothes prop which was also missing was an exceptionally good one, "planed, painted and properly made. The califont had -cost £2 to install" Cross Examination. Under cross-examination, plaintiff •said she did not know how old the house was. It had been left to her | and she had owned it for 12 years. 'The Miles had never been good tenants. She had heard 18 months ago that Miles was looking for a State house. She had given the present tenant an option to rent as soon as Miles vacated the house. She had had to 'do' the kitchen and bedroom and it took two weeks to make .the house fit for further tenants. Plaintiff admitted tha;t defendant had papered a room at his own expense but the paper had to be removed. Regarding the work done in wiring tlfe house, Miles had done "it without her knowledge or consent. The Magistrate: I think, Mr Armstrong, if you'll confine yourself to the question of a month's notice ... Roy Edward Butler, builder arid contractor, told how he had inspected the house at plaintiff's request. One of the main Jaoarils in the Ceiling had-been cut and left in a rough slate. Several battels

had been cut and as they were of one design their - replacement would be difficult. He had put a price of £1 15s on the work necessary and a price of £1 5s for the replacement of locks and keys. He had not seen anything wrong with the ceilings of the two front rooms. "A Nod as Good as a Wink" When Mr Armstrong rose to cross examine witness, the Magistrate remarked: I've given you advice what to do. Why don't you follow it? Mr Armstrong: A nod is as good as a wink. The Magistrate: You arc dealing with the part of the claim for which you arc not liable. Mr Armstrong: That's what I think. The Magistrate: Then why pursue it? Evidence of the condition of the house after defendant had left was given by J. Dudson, -who said he had seen damage to the ceilings. Witness demonstrated the working of the califont adapter and explain ed how it had been damaged. In the witness box, defendant said that as Mrs Brown had told him to get out of the house so often and as she had tenants waiting to occupy the house, he had considered it to be a waste of time giving more notice. In answer to Mr Smith, defendant said he had cut the hole in the ceiling liimself. The other damage alleged to have been caused by him to the ceiling boards was due' to the age of the timber. They had split with old age. Judgment was then entered is stated.