A SEASIDE PROPERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 245, 16 October 1922, Page 4

A SEASIDE PROPERTY.

LITIGATION OVER SALE. BUYER AND SELLER IN DISPUTE. An involved civil action concerning the sale of a property and dwellinghotif. at Northcote was heard by Mr. Justice Herdman in the Supreme Court this morning. The parties in the dispute were Mrs. Laura F. Martin, of Palmerston North, represented by Mr. McVeagh, and Gvsorge James Finch, farmer, of Northcote, for whom Mr. Inder appeared. It was al'laged by the plaintiff. Mrs. Martin, that in April. 1921, an agreement was entered into with defendant to sell the property under rewc-.v for the sum of £1100. subject to certain conditions. Since the purchase piaintitf had gone into possee,.icin, and bad paid £100 by way of de|.osii nnd ei.->l) on account. It was agreed that the balance of the purchase money should be raised by a loan of L'oini under the Government Advances to Settlers Act. and that the vendor should receive- a second mortgage of £350. The loan was applied for by defendant, but on August 8. 1921. he cancelled his, application, and thereafter he refused and neglected to raise the loan. In November. 1921. plaintiff notified defendant of her intention to rescind th. agreement unless the latter was completed within ten days. The agreement was not completed, and during defendant', occupancy of the property it was alleged that damage was caused to the house, and the sum of _2.* i would have to be expended In restoring it, to its former state. Plaintiff therefore sought orders rescinding the agreement and giv- j ing possession of the property, and sho; also asked for judgment for t'Sl .">/ in respect of profit by way of rent, judgment for CI 7/6 weekly from the date of 111,, writ till date of possession, and judgment for £48 10/ as special damages fin respect of alleged damage to the house and payment of stamp duty). .. declaration was also sought that plaintill' was entitled to retain CIOO, which sum was .paid by defendant by way of deposit. The defendant denied that possession of the whole of the property was granted, although he admitted "having remained in possession of the house since the payment of deposit and "on account*' money. He alleged that plaintiff had been unable to give possession of the whole property. The superintendent of the Advances to Settlers office was unwilling to giant the loan applied for. and if the loan had (been avail ■'.'(• it could not have been executed because of plaintiff's failure to have the boundaries of the property defined, to give possession in full, and to submit a second mortgage for signature as provided in the agreement. Defendant therefore, counterclaimed for an order cancelling the agreement, for judgment for £250 deposit money, £11 as stamp duty and £818 2/6 special d-im-a.pos in respect of alleged loss through being unable to effect an exchange of the property, by reason of plaintiff's default. The sum of £100 as general damages was also claimed. Evidence is being beard.