A PROPERTY TRANSACTION.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9247, 5 March 1920, Page 4

A PROPERTY TRANSACTION.

D. F. Knight and Elizabeth .M. Knight (Mr Purnell) proceeded against. H L. Barker (Mr Aelahd) to recover interest (£6O; lis lOd) 'on a,'sum of £1900 unpaid purchase money. Mr Purnell said there was an agreement to purchase the property on Alford Forsest Road of house and 14 acres of land between plaintiffs;'■■-> and defendant. The dates of settlement were July 4, 1919, and January 4, 1920, and nending settlement purchase money was to bear interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum.. On July 4 defendant. took possession. ..Later; in the day Barker Said he would pay £100 into the /bank on. plaintiffs' "behalf. Plaintiffs said the amount, should be £1000, according to agreement. At any rate, £900 was outstanding. Barker was willing to make fchis payment shortly after, but idaintiffs were not prepared to accept at that time. When it came ___ the settlement in January plaintiffs claimed interest.

D. F. Knight, under cross-examina-tion" by Mr Acland, stated that the property was sold to defendant for £3700, ' subject to three mortgages totalling £1700. Plaintiff did not toll Barker that there was a mortgage of £2000 held by the Bank of New Zealand on the property, or a further lien over five, acres of lit of- £IQ< 000 by Wixon's with collateral security over land at Tinwald. .If Barker had paid him £2000 on. July 5 plaintiff could not have given hima transfer for the property. He did not remember Barker telling him in, July that Barker had the money- if plaintiff could put the ti !e in. order. The title was in order on the following January 14. Mr Acland moved for a non-suit, on behalf of defendant because the actual condition of the title was concealed at date of contract. As a .matter of law this concealment of very material considerations in connection with the title* was equivalent to wilful d_._u.lt. Mr Acland quoted case_i__a_nd authorities to support his contention. \ If Barker, had paid the £1000 he might have Vjeen in a very unsafe position. H. L.'-Barker stated he agreed to buy the property nt £3700. Itnight stated on June 2 the only mortgages: on the property were those: entered in the "agreement. Subsequent to that; defendant found theW^-were" -other mortgages.!.than those statedV in' th_ agreement. Witness's solicitor advised that it would not be safe to carry out the agreenrent-of" June ;?2. He saw plaintiff on July' 2., and told him the Bank of New Zenland had a £2000 mortgage over the whole ; property. Knight said he did not• "know of this mortgage. When asked as to the £10,000, Knight- said _he had hoped to'i have that released before. Previously witness had received a letter from the bank telling hint to pay the £2000 to the bank only. They would release the security on the payment ('£2000) of the balance of equity.. Even then, there was. the; £10,00$) on the five acres'..;.. .; After hearing further evidence,,.and legal argument, the Magistrate re-., served his decision. ,