TANGLED PROPERTY DEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume L, Issue 133, 5 June 1919, Page 5

TANGLED PROPERTY DEAL.

SUIT AGAINST SOLICITOR. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM A farmer's wife and a solicitor wore ;he parties in an involved civil action vhich came before Mr. Justice Stringer it the Supreme Court this morning, fessie Mary Mehaffy. wife of Henry Uehaffy, farmer, of Papakura (Mr. R. \. Singer), claimed from Montague Harison Wynyard. a member of the firm o£ kVynyard, Skelton, Wilson, ami Valance, solicitors (Mr. A. E. Skelton). the specific performance of an agreement ior the 6ale and purchase of a farm property, with'£3oo damages, or in the. liter native £2000 damages for non-per-formance. Plie also claimed the specilic lerformanee of an agreement to advance i sum of .£BOO on mortgage, with .CiOll lamages, or in the alternative C«00 lamages f or non-performance. The defendant, in » counter -claim. llleged that the non-penormance of the first agreement was due to the plaintiff's failure to carry out her part of it. He asked for an order for specific performance of the agreement, the performance of certain other alleged duties, and the payment a' €4:W 13/!) interest. It was stated that in 1915 the plaintiff purchased a property of 41!) acres at Ivaraka, near Pukekohe. from two different owners, but subsequently discovered that the land was burdened with a share of a blanket mortgage over the larger property, of which it formed a part. She also found that owinn to a survey error the real area was about seven acres less than she had supposed. The defendant later agreed to buy the property from her. paying £2000 cash and giving her a ten years' lease of it with right of purchase. The t2OOO was paid in due course, but the transfer of the J rcnerty was held up until the plaintiff's title to it could be made good. Ik March, 1918. an arrangement was made for a ioan of £800 by the defendant to the plaintiff upon mortgage, a part of the money to be used in making certain improvements to the property. This loan was never actually made. Each of the parties submitted that the non-performance of the two agreements was the fault of the other. The plaintiff alleged that owing to the defendant's failure to secure a title for her she had been unable to finance the property, and so had lost upon it. She had spent the £2000 in litigation, and in re-stocking the farm, and providing implements. Evidence is being heard.