Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

NON-SUIT REFUSED

CLAIM BY WIDOW AGAINST 0. F. NELSON DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE A claim for non-suit in the action for £3OO damages by Mrs. Josephine Anne AV ilson-Smith, a widow, against the Hon. O. F. Nelson for alleged wilful or negligent damage to a house in Remuera, was refused by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday afternoon. Mr. Hall Skelton, for defendant, submitted several legal points in furthering his claim, but the magistrate ruled that the evidence had shown undue wear and tear to the house and furnishings during Nelson’s tenancy and considered there was a case to answer. Olaf Frederick Nelson, merchant, described the circumstances under which he leased the house from Mrs. Wilson-Smith. “She was very anxious to have myself and my charming family as tenants,” he said. “She agreed to buy extra linen and household articles on condition that the rent was raised by a guinea a week. We had not been in very long before I had to ask her to carry out certain repairs, but she said she could not afford to do so. I replied: ‘At least you can make the place habitable for us.’ Some leadlights had fallen off, the hinges of a window above the main stairs needed replacing and some of the door knobs were missing.”

Finally he was forced to have the leadlights repaired at his own expense, continued defendant. A bill for £2 10s 2d was produced for minor repairs and a further bill for £5 5s 4d for recovering two plush chairs. “I have lived in the best hotels and flats in many countries and have never heard a single complaint,” declared Nelson. He would never have paid such a rent had he known the condition of the building. He then detailed the condition when he took over the lease of the various articles on which claims were being made. They were practically the same when he left as they had been 15 months before, when he first saw them, and had been subjected only to fair wear and tear.

The hearing was then adjourned until Monday morning.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SUNAK19300503.2.22

Bibliographic details

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 1

Word Count
353

NON-SUIT REFUSED Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 1

NON-SUIT REFUSED Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 962, 3 May 1930, Page 1

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert