SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1000, 15 December 1910, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

A MANNERS'STREET PROPERTY. INTERESTING JUDGMENT. Mr. Justice Cooper gave judgment yesterday in the case of Robert Lionel Levin v. Richard Cornelius Gurnoy, relating to negotiations for the purchase of tho Criterion Cafe, Manners Street, a portion of tho Heath Estate. • ■ In this, action the plaintiff Levin claimed £'200 as deposit agreed to be paid by Gurney under au agreement for tho sale by Levin to Gurnoy of tho freehold of the Criterion Cafe lor the price of i! 5720, being £195 a foot. Gurney's offer to purchase waa obtained by a Mr. Longmore (Levin's agent) on September 14, 1910; On October (i Gurney repudiated tho contract. Thero was an alternative i claim for damages for breach of contract, Levin having resold the property at a lower price than that agreed to bo paid by Gurney. The defence was that' tho agreement was induced by the misrepresentation of Loiigmore. His Honour found that Gurney and Longmore had, on September 6, some conversation in reference to the purchase and Gurney verbally agreed to make an offer at- .£195 a foot on terms of payment of a deposit of iiloO or J2200, the balance to remain for five years at il per cent interest. Longmore reduced this offer to irriting-, and before it was signed, a conversation • took place in Curacy's .office. Gurney said to Longmore: "Is that building - condemned,' Mi. longmore?" Longmore replied: "Only the back portion." The defendant Gurney said: "I don't think you are the chap to lead mo into a hole like that," and Longmore replied that he was not. The agreement was then signed. On. September 5 Dr. Frengley, the District Health Officer for Wellington,, forwarded a notice to tho Town Clerk referring to the condition of the Criterion Cafe. This was a preliminary step towards putting into opera-, tion the provisions of the Public Health Act. Counsel for the plaintiff had contended that the representation, made-by Longmore was not a material misrepresentation, as no certificate that the building was insanitary had been issued under Section 90, and therefore no part of the building had'been condemned. His Honour was of tho contrary opinion. What Longmore meant Gurney to believe was that the liability under , tho . Public Health Act would, bo limited to. the removal of the kitchen. Gurney, relying on this, signed the agreement. It was true that no certificate had been actually issued under Section 90 of the Public Health Act,.and that the building had not in -terms been condemned, but ■ the District. Health Officer had notified his intention of issuing it unless Ins requisition was complied with. liiis requisition was not limited to the removal of the kitchen, but included, a new roof for the ,whole building, ' the 'removal of all decayed and broken tinihcr throughout,tho building audits replacement with sound timber, tuc rescrimming and papering of every Toom in the •plaw, and the reorganisation of the whole sanitary arrangements. Although Longmore's representation might have been innocently, the defendant was entitled to rescind the contract. ■ Judgment was for defendant, with costs on the lower scale. ; The plaintiff was represented by ilr. M. Myers, , whilo Mr. T. Young appeared for the defendant. ;

PURCHASE AND DELIVERY. , A REASONABLE TIME. An action-in which John Chambers and Son, ' Ltd., engineers and importers, claimed ,£42 7s. Id. from R. Hannah and Co., bootmakers, was heard' by Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday. ' ! ■ The plaintiffs alleged that defendant agreed to purchase a suction gas engine and producer for ,£IOOO, bnt did not allow plaintiffs to deliver the .engine, arid b.v reason" of this plaintiffs were compelled to take it back and storo it for many months. . After.-, .taking ■ delivery, defendants made 'certain complaints, with "reference to. the. engino and producer, and plaintiffs did what was neccssary to render them satisfactory. .Mr. D. Robertson was appointed as arbitrator, and he allowed ' defendants ' .£lo,' which was agreed to. ' . ; Defendants admitted .that when plaintiffs were ready to deliver, defendants' factory was not completed, but it was denied that plaintiffs were put to any trouble or expenso in relation thereto; or that any date was' stipulated' or ugreed upon for delivery. .The original claim was for .£250 12s, 2d.', but defendants paid the i! 194 ' 15s v 2d. into Court. A counter-claim for the cost of certain material ' and the titno of a carpenter .was withdrawn, and the- only amount remaining in dispute was i£42 7s. Id., for labour, carting, etc. Mr. E. C. Lovyey appeared _ for the plaintiffs, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendants. ' _ His Honour, after hearing witnesses and counsel, gave judgment for the amount paid into Court, with tho addition of, 3Gs. lie disallowed the portion of the claim referring to storage, on tho ground that the contract, was to deliver the goods within a reasonable time, and what was a reasonable time must depend on the circumstances. Costs were allowed on the lowest scale.

CLAIM ON PROMISSORY NOTES. Hearing of, the case of George Doughty and Co., of Wellington, merchants, v. William Henry' Sash, of Wellington, leather merchant, was commenced by Mr. - Justice Cooper .yesterday afternoon. , The plaintiff .company claimed .£370 4s. . 2(1., principal ind interest, as holders of two promissory notes. Ono of tlie notes was dated Anril 20, 1010, and was due on August 29, 1910. It was for .£IBB 13s. 3d., and was given by defendant to G. Hunt. The other, .which was for the same amount and between the same parties, was dated April 13, and due on August 10. Mr. 1?. G- Dalziell appeared for . the plaintiffs and' Mr.. C. B. Morison for'the defendant. The defendant counter-claimed .£3OO as damages in respect of tlie -non-delivery to him of the major portion of the shipment' of leather. The defence was taken first,' according to rule, and.Jlr. Morison had not concluded his. opening address irhen'' the Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.