WHYTE’S HOTEL PROPERTY.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXII, Issue 919, 17 November 1910, Page 2

WHYTE’S HOTEL PROPERTY.

PURCHASE TRANSACTION DISPUTED.

CRAIM FOR DAMAGES

Matters affecting the ownership of Whyte’s Hotel, Foxton, and the land on which it is situated, were brought before Mr Justice Cooper in the Supreme Court, Wellington, on Tuesday. The plaintiffs were Frederick Spencer Easton, of Foxton, farmer, and Barbara Ellen Austin, Foxton, executrix of the will of Herbert Austin, late of Foxton. flaxmiller, deceased, and the defendant, John Rainbow Stansell, of Shannon, auctioneer.

The action, which had previously been before the Court, concerned a contract entered into in August, :qo6, by which it was alleged defendant was to sell to the plaintiff, Frederick Spencer Easton, with the consent of Herbert Austin, Whyte’s Hotel and ground attached thereto for Some difficulty occurred in regard to the description of the allotment, and the agreement was never executed. Plaintiffs asked that the Court should order the rectification ot the agreement by the inclusion of the proper description of the laud ; that defendant be directed and decreed to execute the agreement in favour of plaintiffs, or a transfer of the laud directed. Plaintiffs claimed as damages, or, in the event of it being out of defendant’s power to make specific performance, the sum of was claimed as damages. Mr H. S. Treadwell appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr S. Menteath for the defendant.

The case for the plaintiffs had been previously heard and legal points raised by Mr Menteath, who on Tuesday led evidence to show that defendant was the owner of the property, part of which was sold to plaintiffs and part of which was in dispute in the action. About the end of August Stansell was informed by one Hayward, who was then his tenant in occupation of Whyte’s Hotel, that Austin and Easton proposed to buy, but that they were dissatisfied with the price asked by defendant, Defendant had an interview in Palmerston with Austin, who informed him that he was paying to Hayward lor the uuexpired portion of his lease, therefore he could not give defendant more than for his property, because it had been decided that they would not give more than for the whole property. Defendant was prepared to swear that Austin clearly understood what he was to get for whereas now plaintiffs desired to claim an additional area.

After hearing evidence, hla Honour reserved judgment.