LAND AGENT SUED.

Hokitika Guardian, 1 June 1923, Page 4

LAND AGENT SUED.

A UNIQUE CASE. WF.I.DIXGTOX, .May 29. A unique civil case, described as the lirst of the kind to come before any Court in New Zealand, occupied the attention of .Mi' \Y. G. Riddell, S.M.. at the Magistrate's Court to-day. Plaintiff was Percy Mute, of ’Wellington. and defendant the firm of Thomson, Brown and East, Ltd., registered land agents. The amount yf claim, which was lor rent due. hoard and lodging and general damages was £B7. Plaintiff, in his statement of claim set out that the defendant company was authorised to let plaintiff's house, 03 Coromandel street, at a weekly rental of C 3 lOs to a suitable, respectable and financial tenant. The tenant was not allowed to sublet any part of the house. In duly, 1922, the defendant company negligently let the house to one Bull, without making proper inquiry into the financial position of the tenant. The company also nutherhed Bull to sublet one room. Bull was i liable to pay the rent, and thirty weeks’ house rent amounting to £53 was owing. On plaintiff's return from Australia, Bull refused to give up possession of the house, and plaintiff was put to the expense of beard and lodging for himself, wife and child to the extent Of £'2l. Plaintiff suffered inconvenience from the defendant company's negligence. and for (his and the above reasons he claimed the sum of £b*. made un of £'s3 for balance of rent due, £2l for board and lodging for three persons at 10s per day, and ,219

fur general damages. Percy .Muter gave widen; o rs l i a holiday trip to Australia, and the instructions given to Thomson, who fixed tile rent at £1 per week. The hi use was not to he .sublet and the tenant desired was a Member of Parliament or person of that class. '1 lie house was valued at £‘2500 and was well furnished. He also stipulated that the house should be vacant when lie returned. Witness said that he got rid of Bull on

.laiui.a.v 51 h. The condition of the house was not so had as he had expected it to le. Tile gas had been cut off because Bull had not paid fur it, the i!e trie light bid was in arrear. and t..c telephone had been used for a long distance call, espouse of which was 'lie, l;v vlluo-s.

In «>; c.iTig the ease for defendant, Mr Beer pointed out that the matter v.ax a very serious one lor Thomson, •who was charged with negligence. The pt rii d was to he three months. Dci'liuh'iil was to receive for his services oin- week's will. 2;} ];g, Thomson had bed to advertise and showed three or four people over the premis.es. hut lie v. iiiuihl? to let it on account of the shortness of the period. He wrote to a Moinb'-r of Parliament, hut again w. misuece sful. When Bull was first n ciilionetl. Thomson inspected the bunso he was occupying to s.e if lie was a. careful tenant, and showed Bull over plaintiff's property. He drew up a proper agreement, elie; ekd the inventory which .Muter had made, and inspe. tnl tile house on three occasion.-, to see if it was in proper order. When Bull became ill arrears in rout, he gave him notice to quit and issued summouse• for j ossessiau and rent. .Decision was reserved.