AN UNUSUAL CASE.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 June 1923, Page 4

AN UNUSUAL CASE.

CI. AIM AGAINST AGENT. WELLINGTON, .rune 7 Reserved decision in an unusual civil er e. de.-wrihed as the first of its class to be dealt with in New Zealand ami id c second to he reported in the British Empire, was given by Air W . G. Riddell," KM... at the Ala gist rale’s Court to-day. The plaintiff war Percy 1 Muter, of AVellington. who proceed'."! a..- linst the linn of Thomson, Brown, and East. Ltd., laud agents, for £B,. ' which included claims for rent due, ! hoard and lodging for three persons, and general damages. The plaintiff I alleged that in June, 1922, I lie defendant negligent I v let his house to Joseph Wager Bull ai a weekly rent"! of £1 10s. viihotii making reasonable or proper inquiry into Ids financial or other position: that Hull was unable j In pay the rent agreed upon and left plaintiffs house after the rent had run into arrears to the extent of £53; and that Hull refused to give up possession of D-e premises upon plaintiff's return j from Australia, with the result that ! ho was put to the expense of hoard and | lodgings for himself and his family lor sixteen days. General damages to the j extent of CIO were claimed. Aecordj ing to the Afanrislrate, the question was iv. to whether the defendant act!ed negligently in choosing Bull as a , tenant under the conditions existing ; iusl before the tenancy commenced. Actions such as the present, were exj Homely rare, and there was very little ! authority to guide the Court in arriv- . ing at a decision. If a land agent ; were employed to procure a tenant, he must use reasonable diligence to a seer- ; tain that, the person to whom the property was let through his agency was fit to he a tenant.“ In view of the law laid down bv Die authorities, and the 1 statement bv Air Justice Wills that an agent cannot he expected to guarantee the rent if he has taken reasonable care in. selecting the tenant," eoneltitled the Magistrate, “T think that ! ihe defendant cannot ho held liable for the rent lost by the plaintiff. Nor do T think the evidence shows subletting !of the premises bv Bull. Further, as the plaintiff has failed in respect of the r r '-‘ claimed, it follows that he must fail in regard to the other items of damage." Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant, with substantial costs. BBMBMBBWgCBaa