KING v. HILLS.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXV, Issue 60, 13 March 1915, Page 7

KING v. HILLS.

DECISION RESERVED. At the .Magistrate’s Court .yesterday, before Mr W. 0. Kcnrick, S.M., tue defended ease -Sowion King v. Jesse James HJI was continued.

Zii- it. Spence, who appeared for plaintiff, concluded a lengthy and searching cross-examination of the defendant, who denied lie had said to Phillips that if Wells had not taken the Toko property he- would got on it himself. He denied having anything to do with the sale to Phillips. The telegram produced was merely in connection with the financial side of the exchange.

i Counsel’s addresses were both fairly long, Mr Sellars elaborating on his 'non-suit point, relying on the Land Agents Act. 19’. 2, particularly sections 13 and 11, and stressing the

points: (I) That King was not an agent of Hi Ilk, and (2) if lie were the agent, the agreement was not made under the conditions laid down in wet-ion 13.

Mr K. Sp nice made a very able address, in which lie briefly reviewed the deal. He pointed out that de fondant could have foreclosed on Wells’ property, while he could have .aid, “1 want someone to pay interest on the Turata property.” Wells had not oven known the price of the property. In 1912 the agreement had been arrived at and defendant got the lease of the Toko property for the T<irata mortgage of £3(100 at a discount of £3OO. The defendant had every interest in making the contract. The agreement was concluded in 1912, when the plaintiff had brought forward a, bona fide purchaser, Phillips, >ml they actually took possession. Wh it took place in 1913 was merely between Hills and Wells; this not altering the terms between defendant and Phillips. The second agreement was about what was Phillips’ property at Toko. Mr King’s work was done in 1912, being the sale to Phillips The price-for the work was arranged later. Even if possession had not been taken and there was no agreement in 1912, the plaintiff was entitled to quantum meruit for the work done in 1912. The Act had no effect on work done prior to its coming into force. The charging of interest was ’sworn to as being a custom. Decision was reserved.