A MASTERTON CASE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9670, 18 December 1909, Page 3

A MASTERTON CASE.

By Telegraph—Press Association,

WELLINGTON. December 17. In the Supreme Court, to-day. Judge Chapman sitting in banco heard argument in the case between Frederick Dillon, iviatarawa, settler, plaintiff, and Jesse James Hills, Stratford settler, and Dalgety and Co., Ltd., stock and station agents, defendants. Mr H. C. Rob' inson appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr A. Gray, with him .v.r H. R. Cooper (of Palmerston North) for Hills, and MrD.'K. Logan for Dalgety and Co. In his affidavit, plaintiff said that on August 4th this year Hills agreed to sell by way of lease with a compulsory purchasing clause an area of land with improvements at Hinakama. Hiils agreed to accept payment by Dillon transferring to him certain land at Taratahi, and subject to an existing mortgage of £6,600, having two years to run, bearing interest at 5 per cent. Hills was to take over the breeding ewes at Matarawa at valuation. The value of the balance of the stock to be paid over to Dalgety's account with Dillon. The agreement was made subject to Hills being able to arrange with Dalgety and Co. to take over the above mentioned balance of account. This was consummated. Later difficulties arose in the way of procuring the mortgagee's (Dalgety and Q>., Ltd.) consent to the first agreement through plaintiff objecting to an improvement clause insisted upon by Hills. Under these circumstances Dillon, through 7 his solicitor, wrote declining to enter into the improvements convenant, and notifying that the beat course was to cancel the negotiations between the parties at once, Four days later word was received from the defendant Hills' solicitors that the mortgagees' consent had been obtained, and the improvement clause waived, but plaintiff declined to complete as he had entered into another contract. The Court was asked to decide on the originating summons whether the original agreement was valid or legal under the Statute of Frauds, compelling plaintiff to exchange his property for the lease. If this was affirmed the Court was further asked to say whether or not plaintiff's letter containing the refusal to complete was a valid recission on following grounds:— That Hills at the time ot the recession had no right, title or interest in the lands which belonged to his wife; that the land was encumbered by mortgage, and that the defendant was unable to grant a secure lease. The rights of the parties with respect to a sum of £IOO paid by Hills to Dalgety and Co. was asked and the Court was also asked, on the question aa to whether or not Dalgety and Co. were entitled to hold the plaintiff in any way responsible for the account of plaintiff with Dalgety and Co. to be taken over by deiendant Hills, as provided by the agreement. There was no dispute as to the facts. Mr Gray submitted that the agreement contain*d all the elements of i contract which could be specifically performed. They had been given thirty days on which to get the mortgagees' consent, and it was hardly fair for plaintiff to exclude that condition. Mr Logan held that Dalgety and Co. sliould not have been parties to these proceedings, having made no contract with Dillon. There was nothing to show that Dalgety and Co. had released Dillon from the mortgage in any way. Judgment was reserved.