SALE OF A HOUSE

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 207, 27 May 1920, Page 5

SALE OF A HOUSE

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED " BUYER SEEKS TO RECOVER £450 DAMAGES A claim for-£l5O damages for alleged false representation was made by George. William Grundy against George Taylor Goodwin in the Supreme Court yesterday. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Edwards and a jury of four. Mr. T. Young appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with Mr. D. E. Kennedy as junior counsel, represented the defendant. In his statement of claim plaintiff alleged that he bought from the defendant for £131)0 a house in Bellovue Road, Lower Hutt. Defendant, through his wife, represented that the building was only eight or uino years old, ana had nothing wrong with it. In answer to questions asked.by plaintiff, defendant himself represented that the house was only nine or ten years old; that as far as he knew there was no borer in it except in tho lavatory; that he "hadn't seen any," and that the house was firstclass. Plaintiff discovered after taking possession that the house -had been up for more than fifteen years, and was riddled with borer. • He claimed that • the defendant had made fnlse representations in order to induce the purchase; and upon that ground he sought to recover damages, Defendant denied that he or his wife had made any false representations to the plaintiff. 'He alleged that in answer to a question asked by the plaintiff he said that the only place where ho had seen any 6igns of borer was the lavatory building outside, and that he had not seen anv in the house itsolf; but he •.also said he had been reliably informed that practically no house in the Hutt was free from borer. .With Tegiml to the age of the house, ho told the plaintiff that he had owned and occupied the property for less thnn eighteen months, and that when he purchased it he was informed by a land agent in- the Hutt that it had been built for about nine or ten years. That conversation, defendant further stated, took place after the nlaintifr had inspected the house and p\mises, and had agreed to purchase. DeVidant denied that plaintiff discovered the iiouse was over fifteen years old and was riddled with borer; and he also denied that plaintiff had suffered loss.

After evidence in support of the plaintiff's case had been called, the Court adjourned, in order that the jury might inspect the house in question.

The hearing will be resumed at 10.30 a.m. to-day.