MOSS AND CO. V McGAIN.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 26 August 1901, Page 3

MOSS AND CO. V McGAIN.

(To the Editor.) Sib,—l gather from the lengthy letter addressed to you by Mr G. T. Moss in Saturday's issue tbat he feels some little irritation at your not publishing his own carefully revised report of the ahoye case

I as it appeared with full headlines in ! your morning contemporary. Your editorial comment that civil cases rarely call for full reports is a natural and sufficient explanation, and it is a pity that Mr Moss Was not satisfied with the ample justice done to his side of the dispute through the offers of one kindly journal. But as Mr Moss has seen fit in his letter to go out of his way to attack my firm as regards its connection with the case, imputing trickery and discreditable business methods, I must crave space in your columns to briefly recount the circumstances of the case, so far as we are concerned, and leave the public to decide between us.

Mr McGain an old resident of Grey* mouth, but now living in Sydney ; re; turned to Grey a few weeks ago in order to dispose of some property which he had left behind hinii The business was placed in the hands of Messrs G. W. Moss and Co Who were successful in selling only a portion of the property. Although some weeks had elapsed up to August 3rd Mr Mos 3 had been unable to get any person to enter into a binding contract to purchase the balance of Mr McGain's property then unsold. Mr Moss had however had negotiations with one Mr logan, but he (Hogan) could not enter into a binding contract to purchase unless Mr Moss was prepared to advance the full amount of the purchase money £IBO. Mr Moss declined (as sworn in his evidence) whereupon Hogan, who was anxious to get the property, interviewed me. After consultation, from which I gathered Mr M'Gain was very anxious to sell the property and return to Sydney, having waited at considerable expense and inconvenience for Mr Moss to complete the purchase, I decided to purchase the property myself, and tben if Hogan's security was good and sufficient, I promised Hogan I would resell to hiin on terms; at the same price as Mr Moss was offering the propertj —via,, £IBO. I went with Hogan to McGain and made McGain an offer of £l7O for the property. McGain said he would withdraw the property from Mr Moss's hands first, and then deal with mo later. If at this juncture Mr Moss could have shewn a bona fide purchaser I never should have purchased the property. I met M'Gain after he had withdrawn the property from Moss's hands and bought it myself for £l7O paying a £5 deposit and and entering into an agreement to pay balance of money within a week. I told M'Gain I intended selling to Hogan for £IBO if I was satisfied with Hogan's security at Ngahere which I inspected the following day. I arranged with M'Gain to give notice to the Public Trustee to make new lease out in Hogans name, the notice was duly made out. Had Hogan's security been insufficient or had Hogan withdrawn from purchasing (which he was at liberty to do), then I should have got the new lease made out in my own name. Hogan 'sworn) said he never could have purchased through Mr Moss. Moss (sworn) said he had not got Hogan to enter into a binding agreement to purchase. How then does Mr Moss claim to have absolutely sold the property. If Mr Moss sells properties without binding agreements from olients to purchase or without asking for a payment of deposit, then his methods of selling properties and ours differ greatly. In conclusion, Mr Moss who has had practically a monopoly of the property business in Grey for some time past, appears to feel keenly the fact that other firms can compete successfully with him in the sale of properties, and negotiation of loans etc., and endeavours to condemn (if possible) the business principles of the firm so opposed to him. The public, especially those who are acquainted with Mr Moss can doubtless see through it. I may perhaps be permitted to add that the action of Mr Moss in summonsing Mr McGain some time after the sale of the property and on the very day on which Mr McGain had decided to return to Sydney, and then set down the case for hearing a fortnight later—thereby causing Mr McGain heavy expense and inconvenience in staying to defend ; maybe the usual and perhaps the proper methods of an old and established firm, . but we venture to say a new firm who does not adopt suoh drastic measures, will appeal more strongly to clients in similar circumstances as Mr McGain. Harry Habley. (H. C. Harley and Co.)