APPEAL COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 310, 25 September 1918, Page 7

APPEAL COURT

SALE OF BROAD ACRES COMPENSATION CLAIMED The Appeal Court (First Division) eominonml its sittings jesterday. On the Bench were His Honour the Chief Justico (Sir Robert .Stout), His Honour Sir. Justice Cooper, His Honour .Mr. Justice Chapman, and His Honour J;r. Justice Sim. Mr. C. J l . Skerrctt, K.C., was granted I.'iive to iipneal to the Privy Council in tho Auckland will case Tarbutt v. Nicholson. Dr. AV. H. Fitchett, who appeared for the other side, offered no objection. Mr. H. F. von Haast asked for a stay of proceedings in the Christclntrch case of Scott v. Hepburn, a case having .reference to a patent flue for cooking ranges. In reply to His Honour the Chief Justice, Mr. von Haast stated that the rules had been complied with and security for tho costs of the appeal had been fixed by the Registrar at £350. Mi-. C. V. Sken-ett, K.C., offered no objection to the applicaiijn, hut asked that it bo granted 011 ct 11dition that the sum of £1011 odd paid by his clients as costs to the other sido ,be repaid on his guarantee that it again would be refunded if it became necessary to do so. Mr. von Haast agreed to this,, and the application wo a granted. Mr. P. S. K. Macnssey, of the Crown Law Office, mentioned two cases for the Full Court—Collins v. Arrow-smith and others (a Tailiapo case) and Hammond and others -v. the Cominissioner of Stamps. The lirst case was set down for hearing on Tuesday next, and the other case will be taken immediately afterwards.

A LAND TRANSACTION. The Court heard a case on appeal from Christchurch which concerned the sale of country property at Ashburton. Tho appellants were Kobert John Corbett and Samuel Corbett, as executors of the will of Jolin Corbett, deceased, and the respondent was George Thomas Jones. Sir. V. Wilding, K. 0., with him Mr. H. .F. von Haast, appeared i'or tho appellants, and Mr. S. G. Raymond, K.C., with liim Mr. F. AV. Johnston, for the resiiondent. I It was set .out that in 190S R. J. Corbett and John Corbett (since deceased) had purchased from Arthur Ernest Hart a fa nil of 918 acroa in the county of Asbbtirton, the purchase price being paid with the exception of "£16,000 to be payable in March. 1918. Then, in May, 1914, by signed agreement, the defendant Jones contracted to buy from tho C'orbetts. He paid tho latter £5500 on tho signing of the Agreement, and agreed to pay the mm of £16,000, tho balance of his purchase money, in March, 1918, with interest at the rato of .65 10s. per cent, per annum. Defendant went into possession in June, 1914, and'subsequently resold the properly- and gave up possession, it was further pointed out that tho defendant had undertaken to pay interest on the balance of £16,000 direct to Hart at the office of.the Public Trustee, Ciiristcliurch, and had done so for a time, but had left a balance of £70 4s. 6d. unpaid. This was sued for by the C'orbetts, and the defendant counter-claimed for £1313 3s. 9d. i'or alleged falso representation in regard to the sale of tlm land in so far as some 55 acres outside a gorso fence was much inferior in value to the average of the land within tho boundaries ho alleged had been pointed out to him. Subsequently, the statement, of claiivi pointed out, the defendant paid into Court tho full amount of tho plaintiff's claim and costs and abandoned his cwn counter-claim Then the Corbotts proceeded against the defendant for tho specific .performance of the agreement of Mny, 19.14. Having heard the evidence in this suit, Mr. Justice Herdman held in effect that the defendant had been misled into believing that he was buying a certain area of land within certain bounds. Later he discovered that ho had_ been deceived, and that to make- up his area- he would be obliged to saddle himself with 50 acres of poor land of which he knew nothing. .His Honour added that as the defendant had intimated his willingness that the contract should be performed, subject to a deduction from the purchase money by way of compensation, he thought the proper course would bo to decree specific performance subject to such deduction. ■ Tho nppeal was against this decision, and was on the ground that the portion of His Honour's judgment directing that compensation should be paid in respect of "innocent misrepresentation" (as mentioned in tho judgment) was erroneous in law. It was also claimed in connection with tho appeal that in any case His Honour's ruling as to the measure of compensation was erroneous in law, and the defendant had resold the land at a profit, and no compensation could in any circumstances bo recovered by tho defendant by way of deduction or otherwise. 'After hearing argument of counsel, wlioso addresses were comparatively brief and consisted largely of quotations from and references to authorities, the Court reserved its decision.