NELSON MUST PAY

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1008, 26 June 1930, Page 12

NELSON MUST PAY

CLAIM FOR DAMAGE TO HOUSE I “EXAGGERATED,” SAYS S.M. “The claim was much exaggerated i and plaintiff had exalted ideas of the , value of her property. I do not con- ! sider there was wilful damage, but there was unfair treatment,” said Mr. IW. R. McKean, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court this morning, giving i judgment in a claim for £338 4s made by Mrs. Wilson Smith against the : Hon. O. F. Nelson. Judgment was ! given for plaintiff for £6G 5s Cd. ) The claim was for £263 for dam- : ages for the alleged negligent use by • defendant of a house and furniture, ! during his tenancy from December, j 1925, to March, 1930. There was a furj ther claim of £l2 12s on account of : insufficient notice to quit, £l2 12s for loss of rent during the period necesj sary to repair the house and furniture. and £SO for general damages. Mr. L. Adams appeared for Mrs. Wil- | son Smith and Mr. Hall Skelton repre- ; sented the Hon. O. F. Nelson. Mr. McKean referred to an inspec- : tion of the house he had made four j weeks after defendant had vacated it. j “I found the house in a dusty state,” j said the magistrate. “The carpets : were threadbare and curled, blinds j torn, curtains torn, ornaments broken, i furniture coverings dirty and torn and J walls and ceilings stained and dirty. | The plaintiff alleges that for the whole | of this state of affairs defendant is re- | sponsible. For some of these defects ; it was obvious that the defendant was not responsible. The defendant has a family of six daughters, but they were not all living in the home except in the school holidays. He entertained a good deal and sometimes there were 40 or 50 people at the gatherings. In these circumstances considerable wear might be expected, but it cannot all be said to be unfair wear. No inventory was prepared when the defendant took possession, and no formal inspection of the property was made on behalf of either party. The conflict of evidence shows how very desirable it I is in the interests, not only of the landlord, but also of the tenant, that there should be an inspection made and an inventory prepared by a competent person when a house is rented 1 furnished.” EVIDENCE CONFIRMED On the one hand, the magistrate continued, plaintiff had asserted that everything was clean and in good order when Nelson went to the house. C-n the other hand defendant and his daughter declared that the place was in a deplorable state. “The plaintiff’s evidence is confirmed by credible witnesses,” continued the magistrate, “and I find it much easier to believe that the house was In a condition described by the plaintiff than to believe that the defendant was willing to pay eight guineas a week for a house in the condition that he asserts. One item in particular is a mattress. The defendant says that he discovered its condition after jhe had slept on it for two or three j nights and thought it should be against I the law to allow anything in such a | condition to be used. He was never- | theless content to sleep on it for more than a year.” | Mr. McKean dealt with thc question ! of the credibility of defendant’s evij deuce. After citing certain conflicts in the evidence of the parties, he remarked that it had been made difficult for him to know how much of the defendant’s evidence could be accepted. Taking the items of the claim one by one. the magistrate first commented upon the carpets. There was evidence j that the drawing room, carpet had rej ceived unfair treatment. That also | applied to other carpets in the house ■ except those in the best bedroom, about which there was a doubt. “The plaintiff’s witnesses have based their calculations as to the depreciation of carpets during the tenancy on statements as to value and age which the plaintiff cannot substantiate in evidence,” added Mr. McKean. The conditions of the curtains could not be attributed to unfair treatment. Nor could the blinds. A claim had been made for the repapering of all the bedrooms and for painting the kitchen and bathroom and re-staining all the floors. Defendant could not be held responsible in that respect. As far as the furniture was concerned there was no evidence to show that defendant was responsible for anything except the broken frames of one chair and chesterfield and a music stool. DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY On the question of defendant’s liability, Mr. Skelton had contended that his tenancy was of such nature as to relieve him from responsibility for anything but wilful damage, but that was not so. There was no doubt about the claim for two weeks’ rent as, although it had originally been agreed that the tenancy should be terminable at two weeks’ notice on either side, that period had later been increased to a month. The further claim for an additional 1 two weeks’ rent could not be allowed, j The schedule of the amount which the magistrate considered defendant was liable to pay to restore the house to the condition in which he found it, fair wear and tear excepted, was: Carpets, £10; mattress, £5; repairs to furniture, £3 15s; polishing tables, £3; kitchen linoleum, £6 10s; spirit stand, £1; tray, £2 10s: cleaning yard, £1; step-ladder, ISs 6d; verandah blinds, 10s; ornaments. £5; forks and spoons, £3 ss; dinner service, £3; crystal dish. 12s 6d; goblets, £3 2s 6d; bedspread, £4 10s. The total was £66 5s 6d, there being rent, £l2 12s, to be added. Court costs were £3 11s and solicitor’s fee, £4 6s. The question of witnesses’ expenses for nine witnesses and plaintiff was left • for agreement between counsel. Mr. McKean refused to allow any- j thing for general damages. “I see no i reason for it and I have spent a con- j siderable amount of time considering j this case,” he said. Mr. Skelton asked for security for appeal, which was fixed at £2O.