A HOTEL DEAL.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2708, 1 March 1916, Page 9

A HOTEL DEAL.

DISPUTE OVER' A, DEPOSIT. , _ Judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Chapman in the case of William Bourke v. Lionel R. Ishenvood (defendant) knd A. D. Kennedy and C 0.,. Ltd. (third party). Bourke claimed for the return of £100 which ho had deposited respecting • an arrangement for sale of interests in the Marine Hotel, AVhakataki. from Islicrwood to Bourke. Bourke had commenced a contract to purchase iho hotel interests, and had deposited £100 with Kennedy and Co. (the a'gents), but subsequently failed to obtain a Magistrate's certificate of fitness because be was unmarried. His Honour held that Ishenvood knew nothing of the terms upon which the deposit was made, nor the whole of the facts respecting Bourke's disqualification, and had never claimed the deposit. Therefore, he gave judgment in Islierwood's favour. 110 refused to grant an application which Bourke's counsel made nt the close of the cbjc to make Kennedy and Co. a defendant. ITe remarked, however, that it was difficult to see how the first "sale" could give rise to any claim against Bourko's money unless in respect of something not apparent on tho face of the ovidcnce. He was not in n position to adjudicate between Bonrko and Konncdv, and did not think he should put the Court in that position by means of an J amendment which would not add a defendant, lint would substitute one for another without :»?iy .substantial saving in cost or other advantage. The judgment for Ishenvood carried costs nil tho lowest scale, and Kennedy and Co. were allowed -C' 7s. costs against Bourke.