THE WERAITI ESTATE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue 4176, 27 July 1892, Page 2

THE WERAITI ESTATE.

Lucenav, Joshing, In the Supreme CoMt.Wollington, yesterday, the cnseLucena v. Hosking waa coniuehced. As ihe plaintiff bad died since the suit mm begun, the case was being continued ; i>y his executors for whom Mr H. D. Bull appears, Messrs "0. P. Skerrott and A, R. Bunny appearing for ;>hß defendant, a surgeon, of Masttrion. The plaintiffs statement of chim slit out that by an agreement entered, into between the parties* in August, 1891, tho plaintiff undertook to purobam .block ot land known as Weraiti, containing 1411 acres, and part M.iok known in) Taumata Kailmka, containing 748 acres, at the rate of.. ffij 10a per aore, and paid £IOO on account. The plaintiff has been willing, and has offered to perform his part of tho contract, but the defendant is unable to convey the land except subjeot to a mortgage of. £10,500 and the right of the Crown and public bodies to take 5 per cent, of the acreage for roads. The plaintiff has elected to insist jpon the performance of the c<sract with such compensation as may be just, and has given notice of Mb intention to the defendant, and offered to pormit the amount of compensation to.be determined by arbitration. The defendant, however, haß refused to perform tho contract unless the;whole of the agreed purchase money is paid, and has waived any tender ot purchase money or transfer; also, he has threatened to impound plaintiff's sheep now running on'the land. Plaintiff therelore olainis (1) that the defendant may be ordered to specifically perform his part of th'e agreement, with compensation, by reduotioa of purchase money in respect of the several mutters speoified; (2) that the amount by whioli tho agreed purchase money shall be reduced may be ascertained and fixed by the Court; (3) an injunction retraining the defendant from impounding or inter" fering with plaintiff's sheep; (4) that the defendant may he ordered to pay costs of the action; and (5) such other reliefs as the Court deems fit. The defendant denies the correcness of the agreement mentioned by the plaintiff, and the allegations as to his refusal to perform his part of the contract. He says that it was mutually agreed in September, 18D1, as to the sale and purchase of the land, which contained altogether 2159 acres. The phintiff well knew that tho property wf,s sold subject to the mortgage named, and also that the Orown or local bodies had the right to take a portion for road purposes and public works. The agreement referred to by the plaintiff was not intended to expiess tho whole of the terms of the Bale, but was only intended to reduce to writing and record the price and principal items of tho sale and purchase; and tha real terms were inadvertently omitted. He has always been willing to carry out the true contract, but the plaintiff failed to respond, f.od says it is not true that he has wuived any tender of purohase money or transfer. He olainis that the plaintiff has waived the defocts, referred to by taking possession of the land. Defendant further expresses his willingness to submit to a decree for the specific performance of the contract according to his view of it, but claims that the plaintiff should pay interest on the purchase moaey from December 1891. He also nays ho never intended to impound plaintiff's sheep, and denieß that any injunction is, necessary or proper,

Mr Bell in opening the case, explained that owing to the death of the pluiotiQ there would be do ' evidence in favour of the contention that the fact of the land being subject to a mortgage was not made known to the plaintiff, and therefore he abandoned his claim for compensation in respect of such mortgage, and the claim was narrowed to ono of compensation for land to be taken by tho Mas tor ton Eoad Hoard, for the purpose of a road