BLENNEIM BUSINESS DEAL

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1927, Page 1

BLENNEIM BUSINESS DEAL

CLAIM AGAINST CURLING’S LTD. An action to recover £C6o9. allegdly due under an agreement, from \Y. B. Billing and Co., Ltd. (in liquidation) i.i Blenheim. was brought by George Henry Eugeni Hills, draper, of Blenheim. before Air. Justice Ostler in the Supreme Court recently. Air li. Kennedy and Air. Heine appeared for plain tiff, while defendant va- represented by Sir John Eiiidhiv, K.C. with "him Air. A. C. Nathan. 11 was set, out in the statement- of claim that about April. 1923. an agreement was cnlcml into by W. B. Girling and Co.. Ltd., for tiie purchase of all stock-in-trade ami fittings in the business of Brown and Hills, of Blenheim. On dune l-.t. the stock and filtings were taken over by Gilding's who took over the tenney of the premises, the purchase price being lixed al £10.731). less discount of Cfi-10. The purchase price for the Sittings were set down at £250. The defendant had paid or credit had been allowed, to the extent of £3(181. The balance was title on August 20th. 1023, hut was still owing. The plaintiff said lie had .subscribed for five hundred shares of £!0 ea -li in the capital of ihe company known-'as Gildings Ltd., and said he would allow eretlil to defendant if he provided for proper consideration the -Imres for which plaintiff had Mihseiihed to le credited as fully paid up.

The defendant said that the -um of £1(1.730 was arrived at by gro-s overvaluation by plaintiff of the stock-in-trade. It was alleged that a great proportion of the li Lt i ngs ditl not belong to plaint ill', hut were fixtures of the landlord, and defendant contended that they should he reduced in value from C 250 to £l5O. 11l addition to the amount paid, defendant claimed a further credit of £227 for goods sold and delivered to plaintiff personally. He said no demand had been made for payment. The balance, lie maintained, was not to he paid in cash, but was to he satisfied hy the shares and securities of Girlings Ltd. He said that he had provided for proper considera* cion five hundred shares at £lO each for Gildings Ltd., and that they were credited a,s fully paid up from August 20. 1023. He had arranged with Girling- Ltd. for the issue to plaintiff of debentures for any further sum found to lie tine to pin in tiff. ULALVITEK SUCCEEDS.

His Honour found that the plain!ifi’s ease had been established. The plaintiff had claimed that he had sold Ids .stock-in-trade at a. certain price subject to certain discounts. This coil tract had been denied and the onus was therefore on plniulilf to prove it. This onus the plaintiff had discharged. The defendant bad set up two affirmative defences neither of which it bail pleaded. The defendant had claimed at the trial that the sale bad been made on a representation by ihe plaintiff Dial the prices charged were not more Ilian fair wholesale prices and secondly bail claimed that there had been a variation of the original lenn.s. llis Honour found that there had been, no misrepresental ion. and even assuming there had. I ecu misrepresentation (hen there was no tittle of evidence that such misrepresentation was fraudulent. He was. however, not prepared (a hold that there had been siiv mi-take of fact anything Iheplaini ,!f said was. at Ihe most, an expression of opinion In. Ihe plaintiff. The one- was , |. Hie defendant to prove the variation al'eacd. His Honour was tel

satisfied with the evidence tendered by .the defendant. It was incredible that the plaintiff after fixing a price should agree to a different method of fixing the price which might have involved him in a lass of £I(XX>. The defendant hail failed to establish the defences set up. On the question of the sale of tho fixtures, lie also accepted the plaintiff’s evidence.

His Honour found that, after allowing a deduction agreed oil. that there was due to the plaintiff for stock-in-trade and fittings a balance of £0525. This had. since the issue of the writ, been partly satisfied by the issue to Air Hills of 5110 shares of £lO each in Girling- Ltd. and judgment was accordingly given for the plaintiff, for in nddilion C 1525 with costs to the- plaintiff according to scale and disbursements.