WHYTES HOTEL, FOXTON.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 1021, 25 July 1911, Page 3

WHYTES HOTEL, FOXTON.

THE APPEAL CASE. STANSELL v. EASTON AND AUSTIN. An action relating to the sale of Whyte’s Hotel, Foxton, was decided by the Court of Appeal at Wellington on Friday. There was an agreement to sell the hotel, but there was a dispute about the adjacent property, which, it was alleged, was omitted from the agreement by mistake. This was denied by appellant. The respondents’ viewpoint was upheld by their Honours, The parties were John Rainbow Stausell, of Shannon, auctioneer, appellant, and Frederick Spencer Easton, of Foxton, farmer, and Barbara Ellen Austin, of Foxton, executrix of the will of Herbert Austin, of Foxton, flaxmiller, deceased, respondents. The original action was heard before Mr Justice Cooper, who on 4th January, 1911, gave judgment for plaintiffs with costs. Defendant, now appellant, asked for a rehearing and for the reversal or alteration of the judgment. Mr H. D. Bell, K.C., with Mr A. S. Meuteath, appeared for the appellant, and Mr C. H. Treadwell for the respondents. In August, 1906, Stausell owned Whyte’s Hotel, Foxton, and the laud on which it was situated. It was subject to a lease to A. J. Whyte and others. On 31st August, Stausell agreed to sell the property to respondents for .£6OOO, but it was alleged that reference to the sale of the land was omitted from the agreement by mistake. The purchase money was paid, but Stausell 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 laud was omitted from the agreement by mistake. He denied that he put respondents in posession, and said that if they entered in possession, they did so pursuant to the lease to one Thomas Haywood.

His Honour decided that respondents were entitled to recover ,£75 in respect of damages, and that they were entitled to have specific performance of the agreement. L,eave was reserved to the plaintiffs to move to enter judgment lor 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. In his judgment, the Chief Justice said ; I am of opinion that the appeal of the defendant fails, and should be dismissed with costs on the middle scale. As to the cross appeal, it appears to me that the delay was not wholly caused by the defendant. There was delay because of negotiations between the parties, and I see no reason why damages need be awarded. The cross appeal should be dismissed with £5 5s costs.”