A LAND SYNDICATE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1151, 12 June 1911, Page 6

A LAND SYNDICATE.

* SILVERSTREAM CASE, ALLEGED SECRET CONTRACT. The- hearing '.of :,-tho. case of William Edwin Redstone against tho Silvcrstrcam Laud Company was continued in the Supreme Court on Saturday, before Mr. Justice Sim. •■ ■ Tho plaintiff claimed .£173 lGs. 5d., being six months' interest on the balance of unpaid purchase money,. .£l9(i(i 10s., undor. an agreement for tho salo of 255 acres of land at Silverstream. it was alleged for the defence that W. A. Thomson, of the firm of Thomson' and Brown, who had floated tho company to deal with the land, and was a shareholder in tho'cumpany,- had taken a commission 0f..£500 from the vendor (the .plaintiff in tho case), and was his agent, but that this aspect of the transaction was not disclosed to the purchasers. The defence further alleged that Thomson had misrepresented the'character of the land, road access, etc. It was accordingly counter-claimed that the contract was fraudulent and void, and that accounts should be taken and moneys refunded to the defendant company. The instalments of purchase money paid by defendant were stated to be ,£3840,' in addition to interest ,£368 7s. 6d. Plaintiff denied the allegations as to fraud and misrepresentation, and'said that tho company was fully aware of all the facts when it affirmed the purchase. Mr. H. P. Bell, K.C., and Mr. H. _E. Henderson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. C. B. Morison nnd Mr. A. do B. Brandon, jun., for the defendant. When the Court resumed on Saturday, Mr. Morison suggested that, after the evidence he had called on the previous day, the onus of proof , was shifted on to the plaintiff, and that plaintiff's witnesses should now be called. The case from the point of view of tho defence had two branches—(l) lipn-disclosurc of iho secret agreement, nnd (2) misrepresentation by tho agent of the : vendor. These two matters were .quite' distinct, and lie. suggested' that before he called further evidence in support of the second, tho • plaintiff's side should answer the first. It might then be unnecessary to proceed .with, the second matter.. His" Hdnoursaid it 'would. be | more satisfactory to 'get all the evidence on every question, and then discuss the law. Mr.. Morison then 'proceeded to call the rest of "his witnesses. Percy .Tames Kiuniburgh, salesman, ami Walter' Fair for Shavland and Co.. Ltd., both of whom were shareholders in the defendant company, gave evidence as to having bought shares in consequence of certain representations made to them by Thomson. Walter Smart said that Thomson told him the firm of Thomson, and Brown was taking two shares.' "If 'it i=^ good enough for me.'^he'had. said to witness, "it is good euoughfor .yoiu" 1 ; Cross-examined,'witness said tho price asked for the' flat land—.£loo an acrewas a fair thing at the time, but it would not fetch that now. Harry D. Atkinson, clerk to the Hutt County Council, gave formal evidence. The further hearing was adjourned until June 21, when the evidence for the plaintiff will be called.