APPEAL COURT’S DECISION

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1928, Page 1

APPEAL COURT’S DECISION

(By Telegraph—Per Press Association.)

WJ-MjXGTON, July 4

The Appeal Court to-day heard the case of Douglas George Wright, of Winslow, farmer, v. Florence Jenny Myra Morgan, William Nosworthy and others, of Canterbury, in an appeal against the directions of Air Justice Sim, delivered in April, concerning the estate of Edward George Wright, deceased.

Mr Justice Sim ordered that appellant was not entitled to rely on the sale alleged to have been made of the Windmere property to his mother, and that ho must account for the purchase money of all parts sold by him, also that, lie must account for the proceeds of those parts of Surrey Hills and Windmere sold, by him, whether the sales were coinpleted by transfer or not, and he must pay occupation rent of those parts of the two properties from time to time unsold, calculated at certain rates of interest upon the value made under the Land Valuation Act. Mr F. Sargent, for the appellant, said ho would abandon the appeal so far as the sale of Windmere was concerned, and carry it solely against the Judge’s directions as to the basis on which the occupation rent should be calculated.

Mr Donnelly, for the respondent, said the respondents all along had been entitled to A rental calculated on the actual value.of the land. He con. tended; (1) That Section 30 of the Land Agents Act did not make a contract for a land agency not in wilting unlawful, but merely barred agents the right, to x sue on the contract,; (2) in the absence of written authority it might he waived by the principal; (3) the principal precluded from setting up the statute when he agreed not to set it up as a defence, or where the general principle of estoppel applied; (4) that the Court was entitled to apply to the provisions of the Land Agents Act the same principles as applied by courts of equity to statute frauds in order to prevent the statute from being made an instrnement of fraud.

Mr Donnelly then stated that the requirements of the written contract had been waived l>y the respondent company, amj. the company in effect had agreed net to set it up in the absence of authority as a defence. This was a. case where the doctrine of estoppel applied. The setting up of want of authority made the Act an instrument of fraud which was far from the intention of the legislature. Having heard argument along these lines, the Court adjourned. On resuming the Court stated that it did not desire to hear Mr Sargent (counsel for respondent). The appeal was dismissed with costs on the lowest scalo.