Court Case Over Hotel Furniture

Chronicle (Levin), 7 April 1949, Page 5

Court Case Over Hotel Furniture

AVELLTXGTON, April 6. The Court i)f Appeal today deiivered ,'udgment tii.smissing the appeal ^'e ■m -c of Sli-'do versus Evans, heard on Mandi 17. The appeal was brought by !.• !ie Ilart Steeie, of Palmerston Nuth, against an ordcr made by ilr, ■i . Stanlon on Xovember 26, 194s. i : order conU'stod set aside an awaid :■ adi* by two valuers on the furniture •'1 'lic I'ailway Ilotel at Woodville, v. i.-!i Steole agreed to sell to respon- '!• ;, Artliur William Evans, of Wood- '• >■, liotoikceper. l iif giounds for setting aside the valaatiou wero that there was evidenoe r : .'.liseomluet of valuation proceedings, !.'• pondeut li-lied on the fact that the t miture was valuod bv two valuers in Ih'i-ember, 1946. Since that date, Steele, ')!.• ]iresent ajtpellant, had made adciit i"tis to the 1'uniiture to the extent of Tn Maivh. 1947, a valuation of i'i" furniture was again made by two vainers, oue of wliom had participatod i" llit? earlier valuation, and the fuxni- ; oi- was this timo valued at £2008. Aiiowing for additions, this represented au inereape of £833. Ib'spondent brought an action in the Sapnnne Oourt in 51 ay, 1947, and thfnnanl was set aside b\- 5Ir. Justice '"luisiie on the grounds of the inconsisi eiji-y of the two valuations. Appel'ani tln-n appealed to the Court of Appeal who reversed the judgment of the Su jircuifj Court and held that evidence :is to misconduct of valuation was ipconclusive. Respondent again brought an ai'tion in the Supreme Court ana catled further evidenee not available at tho first liearing. Alr. Justice Stanfi'it lield that the second valuation could not be held an honest one and set

aside the award. Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal against this judgment of Mr. Justice Stanton. The Court of Appeal, in the judgmeni today, held that the great difl'erence in value between the two valuations of the same hotel furniture, made by the same valuer within a perioft of four months, showed evidence of partiality and therefore misconduct on the partof sueh valuer. Ihe valuation awarcl made by him was therefore rightly set aside by the trial Judge. Costs were. awarded against appellant on the higher seale.