LAND TRANSACTION

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 2917, 1 November 1916, Page 9

LAND TRANSACTION

STATUTEI op limitations

, In tho Magistrate's Court yesterday 'reserved judgment was delivered by Mr. W. 6. Riddell, S.M., in tho case of the AValdegravo Park Company, Ltd., v. W. J. Wilkie, farmer, Upper Hutt, claim for £79 17s. 6d., interest alleged to bo due by defendant on July _ 31, 1916. At the hearing it was admitted fhat defendant purchased at piiblic auction Lots (5, 6, 7, 32, and 33, "Waldcgrave Park Estate, and Imder the conditions of sale each purchaser was required to pay the balance of purchaso money in ttireo years from date of sale, namely, March G, .1910. In January, 1909, defendant paid for and, received the title to one of. the sections, but since that date he neither paid interest nor the balance'of money in respect of tho other sections. On February 21, 1910, defendant in reply to a communication from the company wrote: "Ro Waldegrave sections. I do not see my way clear to purchase them, so I shall forego moneys paid on them." On May 5 the secretary of the company wrote that the directors were prepared to grant the defendant twelve months' extension of time to pay the balance of the purchaso money. On September 10, 1910, defeudant again wrote tho company to the effect that he was obliged to forfeit the sections and lose the money paid on them. On January 17, 1911, tho plaintiff company's secretary wrote that tho directors could not see th'oir way to allow defendant to forfeit the sections, and offered a rebate of £2S on the purchaso monoy. After a further series of letters, on August 30, 1916, a summons was issued against defendant to recoveT tho interest claimed.

On behajf of defendant, the Statuto of Limitations was raised as a defence, and-the questions at issue were: —(1) Whether tho lettor of September 10, 1910, and subsequent letters woro sufficint to take the case \ out of . the statuto. (2) If not, whether interest which had become due within six years before tho issue of the summons was recoverable. .

For defendant it was argued that tho interest was an accessory to the principal, and whore the principal debt is statute barred, the interest falls with it. After quoting a number of authorities, His Worship said he thought the interest payable by defendant was accessory to the balance of the purchase money, and on authority was also barred by the statute. Judgment was given .for defendant, with Court costs, Is., and solicitor's fee, £4.

At the hearing Mr. P .Levi appeared for the plantiff company, and Mr. J. S. Bartoij for tho defendant.

ANOTHER LAND TRANSACTION,

George William Kepple proceeded against Albert Tonics Fauvel and Abo Mark Salelc to recover £50. In tho statement of claim it was'set out that ou or about February_ 10, 1916, tho dofondant Fauvel, by his agent,_ G. S. Chisliolm, entered 1 ' into negotiations with tho plaintiff for tho sale to plaintiff of defendant's property in Derwent Street, Island Bay. Defendant represented in writing to his- agent, and tho •agent represented to plaintiff, that tlio property had a frontage of 59ft. 6in., with a depth of 169 ft., with, a total area of barely one-quarter of an aero. Relying on tho representations of tho agent that tho frontage was as stated, and that the land had beon sold in tho immediate vicinity' at £5 per -foot, thus making the value of tlio land approximately £300, and considering tho house on the, property worth £500, tho plaintiff entered into am agreement to purchase the property at the price of £800. After completing the purchase, -the plaintiff discovored that the frontage of the said land was only 49ft. 6in.,. and not 59ft. 6in., as represented, an<l ! the area thereof instead of being barely a quarter of an acre was only 30.2 perches, and that the representations were false s to the knowledge of the defendant, A. T. Fauvel, and the plaintiff had thereby sustained damages to tho extent of £50. • Alternatively that by reason of tho facts aforesaid there liad boen a failure of consideration upon tho part of tho defendant,'A. T. Fauvel, to tho extent of £50 and the defendant refused to repay the same,_ and for a further alternative claim plaintiff stated, tliat he employed tho defendant, A. M. Salok, as a solicitor for reward to prepare all documents necessary to complete the purchase, and it was tho duty of A. M. Salek to liavo ascertained tlio deficiency in frontano and area, but the sai<l A. M. SaleK, ho althgcd, ncglected to do so, whereby tho plaintiff had sustained damage to tho extent of £50. Tho plaintiff claimed against the defendants alternatively £50 and costs. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for plaintiff. Mr. T. M. Wilford, for the defendant, A,,T. Fauvel, claimed that under legal authority he was not liablo for a difference in area,, unless tho plaintiff could provo wilful misrepresentation, which was not even alleged against Fauvel. Ho therefore asked for a nonsuit.

A. M. Salok, in his defence, contended that everything was exposed to tho plaintiff, who saw a plan of the land on which tlio measurements wore marked, and the document signed by tho plaintiff contained the measurements. A. T. Fauvel, the principal defendant, stated that he gave £8.00 for tho property about eleven years. ago, and spent about £100 on the place. Mr. Cliiaholm came to him about tlio sale of the proijorty, and ho filled in sonio of the particulars. He knew the frontago of his property—it was about 49 feet, and he had nover told Chisliolm it was 59ft. If his attention had been called to the frontage entered on tho authority To sell, which was 59 feet, ho would immediately have corrected it. Prior to the salo of tho property defendant was; drawing £1 a week rental from tho property. A. Sr. Salek, the other defendant, also gave ovidenco.

Tlio Magistrate stated that tho oase ought to havo been settled out of Court. Thcro had been errors coin- 1 mitted in tho transaction from beginning to end, and he considered plaintiff was entitled to soma compensation, which ho fixed at £15 against Fauvel. Plaintiff was nonsuitod in his case against Sijlek, and ig) costs were allow-, ed in either case. UNDEFENDED CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following undefended casos: —Arthur Robert Barnes v. W. Rountreo, £1 125., costs 55.; Blake, Carlisle and Co., v. W. Hoggard, £1 7s.' 5d., costs 55.; R. G. Dun and Co. (as assignees of Orme, Korgwen and Co., Ltd.) v. J. W. Downos, £6 ss. 4d., costs £1 9s. 6d.; W. J. S % Hayward v. Grace Flctchor, £4 95., costs 10s.; George and Kersley v. Kawiro Turn, £15 13s. 5d., costs £2 Bs. 6(1.; Agnes Willoughby v. Samuel H. Dyson, £4 2s. 6d., costs 10b. ; Walker and Hall v. T. Asher, 10s., costs 10s.; Von Hartitzsch and Hutch'eson v. J. Benge, 17s. 2d., costs 65.; North Company, Ltd., v. William M'Brido, £3 35., costs 10s.; James Bell v. L. G. Hartley, £2 10s., costs 10s.; A. and T. Hurt, Ltd., v. Cecil 11. Batchelor, £12 145., costs £1 10s. 6d.; A. E. Greenfield v. Thompson, £2 os. 7d., costs lis. POLICE OASES. Mr. L. G. Reid, S.M., dealt witlrtho police cases at tho Magistrate's Court yesterday:— '. * Floronco Palmer, alias ;White, alias Stewart, was . charged 1 in connection with Isabel Reid with the theft of one

box of Californian poppy powder, 12 fine toothcoinbs, 2 mirrors, and olio hatpin, value 155., tho property of John ltoberfc At'lCouzio, ot Willis Street.. Palmer was convicted and 1 sentenced to ono month's imprisonment, ami Isobel Hold was convicted and fined 205., in default seven days' imprisonment. Daniol Keano was convicted of tlio theft of one singlet, one pair of trousers, and five handkercluois, valuo 12s. od., the property of some person or persons unknown. According to Inspector Hendrey, accused had boen recently discharged from prison, and had a very bad record. He was observed to be endeavouring to steal a pair of boots from a shop, and was followed by a sergeant of police, and finally arrested. When searched the goods mentioned in the charge were discovered concealed about his person, and the garments wcro wet. The fact that a. clothes peg was also found on accused suggested that tho articles were stolen from somebody's clothes line. The Inspector particularly desired publicity to be given to the facts, so that tho person who had lost tho goods may recover them. Accused was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment.

For insobriety three first offenders were convicted and discharged. George Howe and James Mason, who had been previously convicted for insobriety, were each fined 10s., with the alternative of three days' imprisonment.