APPEAL COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 987, 4 May 1911, Page 3

APPEAL COURT.

STANSEI.Lv. EASTON AND AUSTIN.

A case concerning an agreement for the sale of an hotel at Foxtou was opened before the Court of Appeal on Tuesday alternoou. The Court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr Justice Williams, Mr Justice Deuuiston, and Mr Justice Sim. The parties were Johu Rainbow Stansell, of Shannon, auctioneer, appellant, and Frederick Spencer Easton, of Foxtou, farmer, and Barbara Ellen Austin, of Foxtou, executrix of the will of Herbert An.-aui, late of Foxtou, flaxmiller, deceased, respondents. The original action was heard before Mr Justice Cooper, who, on January 4th, ryir, gave judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Defendant, now appellant, asked for a re-hearing and for the reversal or alteration of the judgment. Mr H. D. Hell, K.C., with Mr Menteath, appeared for the appellant, and Mr C. H. Treadwell for the respondents.

In August, 1906, Stansell owned Whyte’s Hotel, Foxtou, and the land on which it was situated. It was subject to a lease to A. I. Whyte and others. On August 31st Stausell agreed to sell the property to respondents lor ,£6OOO, but it is alleged that reference to the sale of the laud was omitted from the agreement by mistake. The purchase money was paid, but Stansell refused to transfer the land. Stansell, on the other hand, alleged that he never agreed to sell to respondents any land whatever, and that the land formed part of the premises only by virtue of a lease from A. C. Stansell. He, therefore, denied that reference to the land was omitted from the agreement by mistake. He denied that he put respondents in possession, and said that if they entered into possession, they did so pursuant to the lease to one Thomas Hayward. He alleged, further, that respondents were precluded from setting up this cause of action, in that appellant in ignorance of any claim by them mortgaged the land to the National Bank on March 3rd, 1909, for ,£SOO. His Honour decided that plaintiffs (now respondents) were entitled to recover in respect of damages and that they were entitled to have specific performance of the agreement. Leave was reserved to plaintiffs to move to enter judgment for £3OO, the value of the laud, in the event of its appearing subsequently that the defendant had put it out of his power to specifically perform his agreement to transfer the laud. The grounds of appeal were that the judgment was bad in law in that—(l) lu the trial the judge misinterpreted the law in its application to the case, (2) the judge without a jury misinterpreted the evidence given at the trial as is patent on the face of the judgment, (3) the judge admitted hearsay and other evidence which should have been excluded .-md which admission materially affected the result, (4) the judge had no evidence to sustain his findings of fact. After being engaged all day yesterday, his Honour found that appellant had been guilty of a breach ot his agreement to sell an hotel and a piece of land to the respondents.