GENERAL ACCUSATIONS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 987, 2 June 1930, Page 12

GENERAL ACCUSATIONS

<HOT WORDS FLY IN CLAIM AGAINST 0. F. NELSON JUDGMENT RESERVED Accusations were general in the closing stages of the claim for £3OO against the Hon. O. F. Nelson by Mrs. Josephine Wilson Smith, for alleged damage to her house in Remuera during a 14-month tenancy. heard in the Magistrate's Court this morning, before Mr. W. R. McKean. Decision was reserved. The case, which opened on ' May 1 and occupied six days in hearing, was delayed through the illness of the magistrate. When the court opened this morning, John Leonard Coakley. managing director of George Walker. Etd.. furnishers, who has had experience since 1910 in valuing furniture, told of a visit to the house in question. He valued the total furniture, exclusive oi cutlery, at £295, but it would bring less if removed for sale. ; “The house looked to be rather dingy Ibut on examination of the individual furnishings I could see nothing due to other than fair wear and tear,*’ said witness. “There was nothing except the kitchen linoleum that gave any I idea of uncleanliness, but the whole ' house could well have been renovated.” ! Witness had examined a diningI room carpet which he considered to be about 12 years old. It had been cut into three pieces and, in his opinion, had been brought from another house. On a more recent visit he noticed that the carpet showed more dust than on the previous occasion. The condition of various other carpets and furniture in the house were j dealt with in detail by witness, who 1 said, that they were generally old and showed progressive wear, but no abuse. Most blinds had been there since the house was built, judging by their construction, and there were two quite I new ones which he understood had been placed there by Mr. Xelson during his tenancy. Certain mattresses on | which £2O was being claimed for the I 14 months’ wear, had not cost that sum when new and were obviously quite old. There were no signs of damage. There was dust in the house when he inspected it, but this would be expected in any building which had been empty for a month or so. “HELP FOR WITNESSES” “The house was below a road on which there was heavy motor traffic,” commented Mr. Skelton. “You help the witnesses with all kinds of suggestions,” broke in the magistrate. “There is motor traffic on all streets in Auckland. The answer of the witness is quite plain.” That the beds and mirrors were of a. style in vogue about 30 to 32 years ago was witness's contention. Tha claim on certain rugs was obviously for new articles, lie was about tL give his observations concerning the wallpaper, when Mr. Adams, for plaintiff, objected, on the ground that witness was not an expert in this branch. “1 have heard all this before, and don’t know why I am being troubled with it again,” said the magistrate. The house had obviously not been a “first class Remuera home-14 months ago,” witness continued, and he could » not see anything to bear out the suggestion that it was “unfit for human beings.” Cross-examined, witness said it was possible to ruin a carpet in three months or even in a day by excessive ill-use, but he repeated his opinion j that thex'e had been no recent excessive wear.

"How do you reconsider your statement that certain carpets are seven to ten years old with this invoice, which shows they were bought in 1926 or 1927?” asked Mr. Adams.

“I object to this invoice being put in,” protested Mr. Skelton. “The purchases are not detailed and the invoice not signed. I demand that the books be produced by plaintiff. One carpet had curled at the edge, but this was not unusual with a cheap article or one that had been wet. said witness.

“There is not a high-grade piece of furniture in that house,” he declared. This closed the case for the defence. Mr. Adams, for plaintiff, then asked leave to call evidence of rebuttal. The defence had been on two grounds, the first alleging wilful damage bv plaintiff after defendant’s tenancy had ended, and the second that the house as in a very bad condition when defendant entered into occupation. The defence had been an affirmatory one and had taken plaintiff by surprise. The magistrate, however, would not agree to further evidence with the exception of !Mr. Adams’s own evidence in support of a letter put in, which ivas countered by Xelson when in the box. Mr. Adams accordingly described the circumstances of the lease, stating that the term of tenancy had been increased to a month. “Subject to certain conditions.” interposed Mr. Skelton. CASE NOT PROVED “It is necessary for plaintiff to establish that any alleged damage was not done by fair wear and tear, nor by accident, but was wilful gross negligence. ’ said Mr. Skelton. “Here is a woman in penurious circumstances, and expert builders and designers who say the building has never been repaired since its erection. Evidence of the defendant also is that the house was in a bad condition. with doorknobs missing and the califont out of order. “Xelson paid a total of nearly £lO a week on this seven -roomed villa, having to pay extra for garage and piano, an exhorbitant rent for a poor house. “Plaintiff opened with a virulent attack on defendant and his daughters, unwarranted and unjustified on the evidence. “This is obviouslv a ‘frame up,’ as I have said before. The value of the whole furniture has been shown to be less than the amount claimed on certain articles. This shows the claim was not bona fide, a penurious woman seeking to force a rich man to refurnish her house.

Mr. Skelton attacked tile evidence for plaintiff, claiming that it was given by relatives and people who were not experts, and was dependent on generOn the other hand, he claimed that Xelson had been an excellent tenant and had repaired the house at his own expense.

client is not going to pay more than he justly owes, no matter what this court or any other court mav say,” declared Mr. Skelton. He quoted authorities to show that if a landlord accepted possession of his chattels and went into residence, there could bo no claim. The nature of the claim was preposterous and there was no evidence to show negligence. He quoted common law and numerous authorities in support of hi'contentions.

Further authorities were referred to by Mr. Adams, for plaintiff, who held that a tenancy-at-will, which Mr. Skelton considered covered the present case, was not accepted in Xew Zealand.

I have never before been accused of so many things at once,” said Mr. Adams. “Extorting money, assisting m a ’frame-up,’ and assisting a penurious widow to squeeze money out of a rich man are among the crimes.” He held that the claims were faiand conscientious and were well supported by the evidence. Extravagant statements which had been made regarding the state of the house on Xelson s occupation had not been borne out by defendant’s action in remaining there for a long period. “I don t say there was malice or wilful damage, but it was in the enreLreo nature of these people to throw

to their standards.” said * -- P Co:il ’ » “Many witnesses, too mu r y | as they had known ti y 7. • | some years.’’ I He was prepared to admit th • • a ex was not intentionally so. *•-: I Decision was reserved!