CIVIL BUSINESS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1993, 26 February 1914, Page 9

CIVIL BUSINESS.

WAS THERE A CONTRACT- TO BUY? His Honour the Chief Justice heard a Supreme Court action yesterday far specific performance of a. contract of purchase. Daniel Dec- Hydis farmer, of i'araparaumu, was .ptaintilf, and Kiniwa Hercmaia, a Natnie woman, of Murtinborough, defendant. Mr..lJ. .3. j Fitzgibbon appeared for pJai'iiiiff, afiti J iMr.il{ ; K. Jackson for defendant. . 1 Tho'statement of claim set forth that the plaintiff Hyde was tho. owner of a property in Kent Terrace, find that on . August 0 is'iuhva Hcrcinsia had aßrftcd , ; to purchase it for a snh-i of £!225tU Slio paid to plaintiff's agents' (Mosfirs, J..H. listhuno and Co.) a* snm of £.100 sis deposit, agreeing, it was .alleged, to. pay i>. further Mim.of.fi'iOO we month .later. .The balance; of purchase moi>oy wosilo'. remain on mortgage for fsvs years at 5. per cent. Defendant, hawover, liod Mot paid the other : £200, neither lukl .vii'g executed the lr.ort.nage, It was .farther.' alleged that uy till tho ti'mft that the' agreement was entered into by Ninhra lieremaia the house hod heen lot'for £144 a year, but,..'bjving. to .tltc offer received -from dofcuci.ijtt, -the ..plaintiffHyde had had to decline *np.Ui*r oflov to purchase, and also a»i offer tei&asf the promises. Vlaihtlff therefore jw-ayfid (or mi order that' Niniffa. Heivmaia sliouijl spcwfically perform tiio to purchase, and ho. alss Ehratcd" £1(30 damages for loss of rent awl other, expenses ; or, in tho alternative (if spcoiSc performance could net b« t«d) he claimed £S(X) damnaes. . . It was indicated ,i.» for tlie plaintiff that, after'Ni-iiiwa Herema'jft had made the olTer of 2250, plaintiffwont to one Gaß;e, who.wai' assisting her in the negotiations, aud.rnafle jm.flffcr , to sell ..tho property at'£*3;7s. .Tupoti l)?iiig advised,.".however, NinjiVa Herbmnia- would nnt; bin' at tliis price, plaintiff accapted art offer of £22i , 50. , Thero. was a . siiVgestieit b« solicitor'for'Xinin-a Herfftiaia thai ths offer'made by iHo vras not a firm one, hut that she kwl asked, to l>o aivcu a fortnight in which to cansicTor it. This was denied hy plaiiitiff and piiiiiitiff's agent. Mr. Jc'clisoh asked for a nnissuit on the ground 'that no cniitract had hfon proved, l'laintiff, he efcikled, had not accepted defcndant'B offer, bi.it had mad" a eomiter'.bffer .which.the dpfcadnt't dirt not -accept. Iforenver, if plnhitiff had 'accepted defendant's .offer-.- the . nc:ip.pt" .iiico had not been communicated irt her. Ho contended'.that mps Xinhva Heromaia's offer had. boon' jvjccfcpd, it did not any longer stand valid, and it could' not bo revived by snhsecfiionfc acorp'tanco. The offer would i-p.-.ily loavp to he renewed before any business- could he done. ■ ■ . ■• ' v His Ho'vnur rcsciTcd judgment on tho nonsuit point. Accountants' Pass, Reserved -judgment wa« <]rlivnr:-'3 h.v His Honour 3rr. Jijst.-'oo Hfisltius in ffu■Suprome Court in tho actinn Flehiing'Ross v. AVilliani-Joseph Ferkins and otlierE, a claim for £100 for ftccmWtant's fees. Jtidnmcnt was given for plaintiff for £G6 12s. Mr. E. C. Lavvev appcawd for plaintiff, and Mr. T. Xoavc for tile d-> ■fondaiits. ■'