MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 567, 17 September 1920, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

I CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF V. WALTERS. ibe M gistrate'if Court yester■Pr* before Mr. A. Mowlem, S.M., Arthur l.andon, furntaff Puni, claimed irotn Leu J. Walters possession of certain articles as- set out below:— The statement of claim as set fprth stated: (1) That by agreement in writing bearing date March 2, 1920, plaintiff purchased the defendant s farm of 47!-j acres at Puni, together with all buildings thereon erected, and the rights and appurtenances belonging thereunto, for 1108 per acre; (2) that attached to the on the farm at the time of sub was a benzine and air gas lighting plant and all necessary pipes and fittings connected therewith in good order and condition used oy the defendant for the purpose of lighting the dwellinghouse niul other buildings on the property. Also, an iron rack attached to\a chimney in the dwelling and used fojj cookery purposes; (3) that inimeWtftely before the plaintiff took posse: sion of the property the defendant removed the benzine and air gas plant, pipes and fittings, and the iron ra. k from the property; that the phiintiff has demanded possession of the abovenamed articles, but defend-

ant refused to give delivery of same. Plaintiff claimed the recovery of the ga. t plant or £2O in case possession cannot be had, and £1 for the iron fa.!:, and £lO for damages for the detention thereof, making £3l in all. , \' r - W. P. Hopkins appeared for pluintift and Mr. A. Hanna for the defendant. Arthur Landon, farmer, Puni, said In March, 1920, he purchased a farm from the defendant. There was no mention* made in connexion with the lighting plant. He knew the plant well. It was put into the house by his brother, who owned the place, and subsequently sold it to Walters. He naturally expected it to pass over to him. The tank was in a box and pipes led through the walls of the house. The bo* which contained The tank was on the outside of the house, hut fastened to the structure. The box was left, but as far as he knew all the pipes were rernoved. Through the removal of the pipes it appeared that a ventilator was damaged. About four years ago the plant cost £2O 10s. He had demanded possession of the plant, but Mr. Walters refused to replace it. With reference to the rack over the stove, it was in its place when he bought the farm, but after taking possession he found it had been removed. He paid £IOB per acre for the land. The rack would Cost about 255, but he claimed £1 for it.

To Mr. Hanna: He did not know anything about an arrangement between defendant and his brother with feference to the benzine light and

wr.v Worship: When he was goHw round the farm negotiating for the purchase the plant was not pointed out to him, and no mention was made of it. When he acquired it there was no other system of lighting. He depended entirely on the plant to light the premises. Joseph Landon, farmer, residing at Papatoetoe, and brother of the plaintiff, said he was the former owner of the property. Prior to the sale he had installed a lighting system. There was no other lighting system in the house. It cost him about £2O 10s to instal the plant. When he sold to Walters the plant was never mentioned. He naturally thought it went witt the place. With regard to the i-fak over the stove, he installed it when the house was built. This was included in the contract price for the installation of a hotwater service.

To Mr. Hanna: He sold the milking machine with the farm, but he put a price on the place to include the milking machine. To Mr. Hodfins: The lighting plant Was never mentioned when the negostations for the sale of the property were in progress.

John George Russell, manager of the Pukekohe branch of the Farmers' Union Trading Company, said at the time of the sale he was acting with Mr. David Roulston for Roulston's Land Agency, as land salesman. Witness. went out to the property, but no Attention whatever was made concerning the lighting plant. He had nine years' experience in land sales, &nd in the case of such lighting systerns, unless any special price was put on them, they were sold as part and[parcel of the house. Iffivid Roulston, land agent, said he was instrumental in effectfhg the sale to plaintiff. He had no knowledge of the lighting plant. He never went into house. He had-been connected with the land agency business with his brother on and off for the l§st 20 years. Unless anythin" was Mentioned to be taken away everything went through with the sale.

To Mr. Hanna: If a milking' plant, not mentioned in a sale note it would pass to the purchaser of a property providing it was a fixture. To his Worship: A milking plant was mentioned when a sale was in negotiation, but if it was not mentioned it would go through as a sale because it was a fixture. THE DEFENCE.

Leonard J. Walters, defendant, said i he sold the property to Mr. Landon, but the sale did not include anything except the land and buildings. With regard to the lighting system, a small box was nailed to the wall, and the tank stood in the box with its own weight. From the tank- a wire led up the wall on the outside, and then entered the building' through a hole in the wall. The wire ran along the ceiling, being held by tacks pressed in by the hand. A bracket was fitted giti to the ceiling, this being held by %ive small screws. The wire came ' through the ceiling. When he removed it he unscrewed the connexion at the tank, then drew the wire through into the room. He then unscrewed the lamp brackets, and took the whole thing away, so, with the exception of the bo£, he had the whole of the plant. NOrvdamage whatever >vas done to the building. He never heard of milking machines be ing sold as a fixture. ~ To Mr. Hopkins: He never had a conversation with Mrs. Landon in with the plant. The plant cuure to him from Mr. Landon's brother, and was purchased when he purchased the farm. To Jlis Worship: He naturally anticipated the plant would go to the purchaser when he acquired the property from Mr. Joseph Landon. Mr. Hanna: He had heard of ligKfet: systems being sold separately. ™

To the Magistrate: The reason he did not mention the lighting system to the purchaser was because when he purchased another place he found it had no system of lighting, so he took this system away for the purpose of lighting the house he had purchased. He left one lighting system an acetylene system. He did not have a conversation with Mrs. Landon about the lif't. Ht 1. ul not .given the question of removing the lighting system, any consideration until he acquiifp-ibe other place.