A QUESTION OF RENT

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 60, 13 March 1915, Page 7

A QUESTION OF RENT

FORBES V, COLLOP, Before 31 r W. G. Kcnrick. S.M., at ,he Magistrate’s Court, Stratford, cvilouco was licard in the case Mary Kories, of Tuna (for whom Mr I’, i'iiomion appeared) v. Charles Benjamin Gollop, late of Stratford (Mr T. C. Kookes), a claim for £2 due for rent. Evidence for the defence was heard at Dunedin and Greyniouth. Plaintiff, in her evidence, said that the house had been rented to defendant at a rental* of 15s per week. On October 17, 1911, having sold the property, she went round to give defendant a month’s notice. She interviewed defendant’s wife, and gave her a month’s notice, at the same time agreeing to allow something if they removed at once. .Defendant and his wife said nothing, but closed the door. Plaintiff received £3 on October 24th, being the rent due up to that date. She did not see defendant until November 14th, when the nonth’s notice was up, and when defendant left the house. An account was Aent to defendant for the £3 rent wring, to which a reply w/ s sent to the 4fe; t that plaintiff had agreed to pay he carrier’s account, and enclosing ss. Plaintiff then replied that she knew nothing of the arrangement, and placed the matter in the hands of her solicitor. She had made no arrangements about paying the shifting expenses. By Mr Fookcs: She had merely told defendant that a concession would be made if he moved out right away. Mrs Hannah Bloxam gave corroborative evidence as to the interview on October 17th. Albert Forbes said be acted as agent for the plaintiff, his wife. Tn September* he was asked by defendant’s wife about the reduction of the rent in the event of their taking the house for six months, and he agreed that the rent would be reduced to 14s on that condition. So far as he knew he had received no acceptance of this offer. At a later date defendant’s wife said they won Id pay the 15s if two rooms were papered. He had not had a conversation with defendant or his wife since that date. He could only account fo the carrier’s account being sent plaintiff by the fact that plaintiff had agreed to make some remuneration for asking them to move out at once.- No papering was done when defendant was in the house. The Court then adjourned till next Friday.