KNIGHT V. BARKER

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XL, Issue 9292, 29 April 1920, Page 6

KNIGHT V. BARKER

APPEAL PARTLY SUCCEEDS.

(Per Press Association.)

CHRISTCHURCH, April 28. Sitting in- ■-banco-at ■■ the .Supreme Court to-day,' his'''Honour Mr Justice Herdman heard an appeal from the decision of Mr W. li. ivxcKean, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court at Ashburton on March 19, on a claim lor interest amounting to £60 11s iOd, alleged to be due to Donald Frederick Knight, of Tinwald, farmer, and .Elizabeth Jinight his wife, from Hubert Lean Barker,, of Ashburton, merchant. In the Lower Court the Magistrate entered judgment for the plamtufs and against this decision the defendant appealed. IT The principal ground on which the appeal was based that the Magistrate had -erroneously decided on the construction of the contract and on the facts disclosed and adduced at the hearing. The respondents, in their statement of claim in the Lower Court, alleged that in June, 1919, they entered into an agreement with the appellant to sell certain lands to him, situated at Ashburton, at a price of £3700. The sum of £2000 was to be paid to the respondents and the balance, £1700, was to remain on mortgages then upon the land. The agreement contained a clause to the eriect that the unpaid purchase money should be payable clear of exchange and should bear interest at 6 per cent per .annum, from the date when it was payable until actual payment, and notwithstanding any delay "in completion which should arise through matters over which the purchaser had no control. The appellant paid respondents on Jyly 4, 1919, the sum of £100 as a deposit, and m part payment of the purchase money. The balance of the purchase money, £1900, was paid on January 14 oi this year, but the appellant had not paid interest on the balance of £1900, or any part thereof, for the period during which this amount was outstanding. Respondents therefore claimed from appellant (in the lower Court) the sum of £60 11s lOd, interest on £1900 from July 4, 1919, to January 14, 1920, being. 194 days at the rate of 6 per cent per. annum. ■ Mr F. S. Wilding appeared for the appellant and Mr C. \V. Purnell for the: defendant. '. After hearing counsels' argument his Honour said that he would allow the appeal to this extent—that the Magistrate- having in his judgment awarded interest on £1900 to January 14, 1920, his judgment should have been for ,'nterest on £900 from July 4, • 1919, to January 4, 1920, at 6 per cent interest and for interest "on £1000 at 6 percent, from January 4, 1920, to January 14, 1920.. As both parties had partially succeeded no costs would be allowed.