AGNEW V. SCHISCHKA.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 51, 1 March 1909, Page 3

AGNEW V. SCHISCHKA.

A LOXG-STANT>IXG DISAGREEMENT. JUDGSIEXT FOR PLAINTIFF. Judgment was delivered by his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards this afternoon in the case in which Gordon Agnew, a farmer, of Hikuai, claimed £550 damages from John Schischka and George Morrison, the latter also being a farmer, of Hikuai, or as an alternative, the setting aside of the deed of transfer of certain landed and other property from Schischka to Morrison. Mr. Burton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Earl for the defendants jointly.

I-n giving judgment, his Honor said there was no doubt that the contract described in the letter dated May 14, 1904, in which Mr. Bchischka said he had sold the property to Mr. Morrison, was correct, and later on May 31, when he acquainted the plaintiff that his interest in the property had been sold for £200. Morrison had agreed to give £100 for the freehold, and £100 for the leasehold. It was one offer and one transaction—although he (the judge) had been asked to say upon the evidence of a suppositious telegram that there had been two sales. The plaintiff from the first had been under the belief that it was one sale, and when the deposit was paid by "lorrison's solicitor to Schischka's solicitor for the purchase of it, expressed to be for one sale. of £200. A considerable amount of time had been allowed to elapse between the old and the new -contract. Unfortunately for Mr. Sehisheka, in the meantime events had happened by which the value of the property had considerdably increased. But Mr. Schischka chose to tranefer the property without making any inquiries, notice, or adokement. A gentleman, whose bona fides had been entirely satisfied by a written and signed offer into Court, had come forward and offered £300, which 'Morrison had refused unless he purchased other property thit had nothing whatever to do with the matter. .Morrison, of course, did as he had a perfect right to do; he bought at the lowest price, and there was no reason at all why he should have been found in the case as a defendant. Judgment would he given for him. On the other hand, judgment would be given against SJchischka for the sum -which he ought to have obtained in excess of the sum realised—£2oo, with costs acrordin;; to scale, Morrison to obtain £10 10/- out of the full costs towards his own legal expenses in the case.

Mr. Earl applied for a stay of execution on the ground that there was another case pending in which Schischka claimed a considerable sum from Agnew. His Honor replied that the case had been a perfect nightmare to him already, lasting from month to month and generally having thus taken a ridiculously protracted time to settle, that had Schischka desired to get judgment on any other matter he had had plenty of I time. • J Mr. Earl said his client was prepared Ito pay the full amount into Court, only I asking that execution be stayed. But I the Judge failed to see the reason for such a course, agreeing to stay the costs only under -certain conditions.