ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10155, 3 February 1911, Page 3

ALLEGED BREACH OF AGREEMENT.

CAVE v. HANNAH. AN INTERESTING CASE. In the Magistrate's Court- at Masterton yesterday, before Mr L. G. Reid, S.M., a case was .'Heard in wihich Augustus William .Cave, of Masterton, claimed ' from Robert Hannah, of Wellington, a sum of £9 Is 8d for alleged breach of agreement.

Mr Jordan (representing Messrs Gawith and Logan) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr W. H. D. 8011, of Wellington, for .the defendant.

The statement of claim sot out that the defendant entered into, an agreement to accept a lease from the plaintiff of certain premises to be erected in Queen Street, Masterton, for a term of eleven years from the completion of the building, upon certain terms, and that the defendant had broken the agreement. Tho plaintiff therefore claimed the sum of £4 Is Sd, being the amount disbursed in respect to the agreement, and the sum of £5 for breach of agreement.

Emeline E. Pickering, called for the plaintiff, deposed that she was the lessee of premises belonging to Mr A. W. Cave. In July lasf Mr W. H. Cruiekshank came to witness, and asked her if she would sell her lease. She said .she would do so for i\ sum of £llO. ' The lease was to expire in February, 1912. Mr Cruiekshank did not state, on the first occasion, who was the prospective buy-

er. Ha told witness shortly afterwards that Mr..Hannah was the buyer. Mr Cruickshank asked if the lease could be extended, and' ••■witness said she thought so. Mr" Hannah subsequently 'came to see witness. He looker round, and expressed the opinion, that the room was not 'high enough. He looked round the back, and then said he would see Mr Cave. He said if he ■could come to an agreement with Mr Cave, witness' part of 'the business would be easily settled. "Witness .understood'.this'remark to refer to, the £llO. He said he had seen Mr' Cruickshank About a fortnight af- '■ terwards Mr Hannah came to witness' rooms and said he had come to terms with Mr Cave, and said he; now wanted to make?terms with witness. He offered witness £2-5 to go out, and said he would give witness five minutes in which to;make up, her mind. He said he had some-; thing else in view; Witness said she could not make up her mind so suddenly, and she would see her solicitor first. ■ Witness saw her solicitor, and afterwards told Mr Hannah that she would; not take less than £llO. ■Mr Cave subsequently offered witness another £25,, which witness refused, and Mr Hannah said that settled matters. At a later period, "Mr Qruickshank asked witness for an option for Mr Hannah; and witness gave the option, fixing the amount at £llO.

James Moore Coradine, builder, deposed" that lie had been called to j Mr. Gawith's office o,n one. day ,in J August last.'.." He found,Mr Gawith .■] and Mr Gave .there,, and he was : asked : ; to'; prepare plans and* ah 1 estimate for a'buildiiig on the site of Miss Pick-i ering's tea-rooms.. He was. supplied with, a rough sketch as to the requirements. He prepared a sketch plan, with an estimate,; and afterwards saw Mr Hannah at Messrs Gawith and Logan's'office. Mr Hannab understood that 'witness,' was to do the work. Mr Hannah asked' jf it would not be - better. to call for_ tenders. Mr Cave would not agree to this; Witness then went on with the specifications.,- He subsequently, witli the acquiescence lof s Mr Cave, called on Mr"!Hatiha!h in Wellington audi arranged, certain details. : Witness understood that everything was settled, with the exception of. the agreement with Miss Pickering. Witness made, a nominal charge of £3 ■for. preparing" the plans, although he was entitled to, charge'2£per cent. Counsel for plaintiff put in a deal of correspondence, between the parties, from which it appeared that the plaintiff was to erect a new building i,. on the existing site, and the defend- ! ant was to take a lease for a period of ten: "years, at a rental of o per I cent, on the cost.

William H. Cruickshank, kind agent, of Masterton, deposed -that lie had answered an advertisement regarding a shop, and had placed lli v ss Pickering's premises before Mr: Hannah. He stated that he "thought Miss Picketing's interest could be bought for £IOO. . At Mr. Hannah's' request he saw Miss Pickerings and sin'-.-asked £llO for her intercut. He told Miss 'Pickering that he Mould' riot charge her any commission.' H& aftei wards wrote Mr Hannah, offering the premises of Miss Pickering for £llO. Mr Hannah asked for further particulars, and witness obtained them from Messrs Gawith a'nd Logan. A meeting vsubsoqvontly took place at .Gawith and Logan's office, at which Mr Hannah and wit-

ness were present. The terms of a lease were discussed, tut there was no mention of Miss Pickering. Mr Hannah went to see Miss Pickering, but'witness was' not aware of the fact until after Mr Hannah hail interviewed hor. . '

Augustus William Cave ■ stated that his wife was the owner of the property -in question. Witness remembered that Gawith and l'io;zan endeavoured to negotiate for a Itjso (Continued on 3rage 7.)

of the property to Mr Hannah. Witness told Mr Hannah that he thought it would be all right for Mr Coradine to put up the building. Witness did not know there was any arrangement between Miss Pickering and Mr Hannah. •

David Kennedy Logan, , solicitor for Mr Cave, stated that he remembered Mr Cruickshank calling on him' in August last in reference to Miss Pickering's lease of the premises, and asked on Avhat terms the present lease could' be extended. Witness communicated with Mr Cave, and subsequently gave Mr Cruickshank the terms for extension. In November Mr Cruickshank .saw witness and obtained the option from Miss Pickering to sell her goodwill of the lease and stock-in-trade. A few days after he told witness that Mr Hannah was coming to Masterton and would arrange an appointment with Mr Cave. The appointment was .made, and both Mr Cruickshank and Mr Hannah interviewed Mr Cave. Mr Haxmah said he would, pay Miss Pickering £.IOO and cany out-;his original arrangement.. with' Mr Cave. Mr Cave would not discuss the matter.

Mr Bell, for the defence, said the correspondence did not constitute a contract, and on that point he applied for a non-suit. Mr Hannah did not undertake to buy out Miss Pickering. The agreement, as alleged, did not set forth the terms of the lease.

Mr Jordan said there were other detters that upheld those put in, and a contract was entered into.

His Worship said defendant had not been shown to have made a definite agreement. A nonsuit would therefore ibe granted. , An application for defendant's expenses was disallowed, but solicitor's fee,.£l Is, was allowed.