SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 251, 26 November 1914, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS.

A COMPENSATION CLAIM.. The civil sessions of the Supreme Court were continued after The Sun went to i>ress yesterday, his Honour Mr Justice Denniston presiding. The hearing was concluded of the action, Clarence John Burton Moffatt v. the Christchurch Meat Co., Ltd., a claim for £IOOO as compensation to the plaintiff for the loss of an arm in the defendant company's works at Islington on .July 9 last.

Mr F. S. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr A. T. Donnelly, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr -O. T. J. Alpers, with liim Mr E. T. Harper, for the defendant company.

After a retirement of an hour the jury returned to court with a verdict in favour of the defendant. They found that the machine used was safe and proper, and that the plaintiff had ignored the risk. Judgment was entered for the defendant, and, by consent, for the plaintiff for the amount of compensation to which he was entitled under the Compensation Act. ! Mr Alpers undertook that lie would convey to the defendant company a recommendation of the jury that they endeavour to further assist him. A LAND EXCHANGE.

This morning the hearing was commenced of the case of C. Jesse Maslin, farmer, of ROlleston, v. the National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd., of New Zealand, and John Fergusson, farmer, of Rolleston, a claim for £3053 in respect to an exchange of properties. The defendant company lodged a counterclaim, being the amount of a mortgage due by. the plaintiff. Mr Spratt appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr S. G. N Raymond, K.C., with him Mr Neave, for the defendants. In opening the' case for the plaintiff Mr Spratt said plaintiff claimed against defendants in three distinct causes of action. In the first place plaintiff alleged that an agreement was entered into through the agency of the company between the, defendant Fergusson and the plaintiff. That agreement, through the default of Fergusson, was not carried out. In addition plaintiff said the company, in order to effect this agreement for the exchange of the respective farms, of Fergusson and Maslin, gave % a representation amounting to a warranty ' that they would arrange to finance Fergusson so that the deal might go through. That was not done. Fraud was also alleged -on the part of the company, inasmuch as the company represented to Maslin that Fergusson liad a Utle and that he wag in a position to give immediate nossession.

The facts, lie said, were that in April last the plaintiff Maslin was the swner of a property at He placed this property in the hands of agents, among them being the National Mortgage Company. There was then owing on the farm to the National Mortgage and Agency Company the sum of about £IOOO. On May 25 two agents of the company visited Maslin and told him that the manager of the company was tired of financing him, ,antt wanted the acc ouut wound .up. They saic;l they had a man who would take the farm over, and that the company was going to finance him. The proposed pui'chaser was a man named Fergusson. Later they again visited Maslin with an offer from Fergusson, offering to exchange his property of H 74 acres at Rolleston for Maslin 's 715' acres, Fergusson to pay ii* addition the sum of £IOOO. Masiin called at the office, of the National Mortgage and Agency. Company, and found an

acceptance of the offer prepared for lvim. He. was told that the company intended to finance Fergusson. Plaintiff signed the acceptance, and agreed to give Fergusson immediate possession. Later Maslin got a letter from the company confirming the offer generally. M&sliu gave up possession of his farm to Fergusson, and Fergusson had been there ever since, but Maslin had got neither the farm nor the £IOO0 —he had got nothing. In July, Maslin offered the property for sale, and it was only when negotiations for its sale had been entered into that lie found that he had neither possession nor title. Fergusson had had no title to the property, and there was no privity of the contract between him and the owner of the place. Plaintiff therefore claimed £2553, as special damages (the £IOOO agreed to be paid, and £1553 the value of the property), and £SOO special damages. Against these sums plaintiff admitted a set off of £I4OO, being a third mortgage to the company. (Proceeding.)

CHAMBER BUSINESS. Sitting in Chambers on Tuesday, his Honour Mr Justice Denniston granted probates in re Catherine Wyllie (deceased) and Frederick Paintin (deceased). Yesterday probates were granted in re Charles Francis King and John Miles (deceased). In re John Orr (deceased), an order was made confirming the report of the registrar. In re James Wilson (deceased) and Alfred Louisson (deceased), orders were made dispensing with the observance of the new rules under the Arlministration Act, 1908!" In the case of Granger and another v. Harborow, aii order was made directing service of the originating summons on the defendant.