SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5713, 22 July 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Mondat, July 21. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and' a special Jury.) WOOD V. ROLLER. Mr. Connolly, with him Mr. Pitt, for the plaintiff, and Mr. W. T. L. Travers for the defendant. In this case the plaintiff sought to have certain documents, purporting to be absolute conveyances, declared to be simple deeds of mortgage. The following gentlemen were empannelled as a special jury:—Messrs. L. Levy (foreman), G. V. Shannon, J. Chew, G. N. Campbell, \V. Hutchison, J. MoManaway, B. Holmwood, P. Johnston, J. R. Blair, E. O’Malley, Morgan, and S. Carroll. No less than 56 issues were submitted to the jury, and from the statement of counsel for the plaintiff, the following would appear to be the facts of the case ; —The plaintiff in 18 73 was the possessor of a farm at Motoa, in the neighborhood of Fox ton, having an extent of 430 acres. This land was of very great vilue, and the plaintiff had refused £2500 for it, believing it to be worth half as much again, viz., between £3OOO to £4OOO. The defendant was well acquainted with the land and its value. In the year mentioned there was a mortgage of £I2OO upon it. About that time Wood had incurred losses which placed him in straightened circumstances. He had been engaged in the work of flax-mrking, which had proved a failure, and caused him to be very short of money. Having known Dr. Buffer before he went into practice as a solicitor, he went to him on the subject of raising money on the land to pay off the mortgage, and also some further liabilities which he had incurred ; in fact, the land was in November of that year about to be sold in Wellington. The defendant knew that he had received £2500 for the land. He proposed to buy the property from the plaintiff. He declined to lend the money on mortgage, but proposed a plan by which he should purchase the property, entering into an agreement to sell it back again to the defendant any time within three years. He was to pay the mortgage of the land and other liabilities —in all, to the amount of £ISOO. Plaintiff was under the impression that it was to be an ordinary mortgage. Defendant said, “ If I hay the property in this manner you must give me £IOOO. Plaintiff, however, refused to do so, and said he would only give 10 per cent, on the amount of the purchase money. Both plaintiff and defendant went to _ the office of the auctioneer and withdrew the property from, sale, and defendant agreed to bay it on the terms mentioned for_ thesum of £ISOO. Subsequently the plaintiff signed a document which he thought was an agreement in all respects the same as the verbal one, but

he found it was not —that it cut off four acres of the land, and that he (plaintiff) was to pay for the property to get it back half as much again as Mr. Bailer had given for it. He" believed the document was not read over to him, and when he signed it he understood it to be substantially the same as the verbal agreement. Evidence was then called for the plaintiff. There are altogether twenty-seven witnesses, and the case will probably last the whole of to-day. The Court adjourned at its rising to ten o’clock this morning.